Childcare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 December 2005.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 7 - Duty to secure prescribed early years provision free of charge

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 8, at end insert

‘, such guidance to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and its existence noted by way of Written Ministerial Statement.’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 8, page 5, line 31, at end insert

‘, such guidance to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and its existence noted by way of Written Ministerial Statement.’.

No. 12, in clause 11, page 6, line 31, at end insert

‘, such guidance to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and its existence noted by way of Written Ministerial Statement.’.

No. 13, in clause 12, page 7, line 14, at end insert

‘, such guidance to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and its existence noted by way of Written Ministerial Statement.’.

No. 14, in clause 13, page 8, line 4, at end insert

‘, such guidance to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and noted its existence by way of Written Ministerial Statement.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment has been tabled to deal with a new form of legislation that seems to have crept into our system—guidance. Guidance now seems to be even more powerful than secondary legislation. The amendment also applies to clauses 8, 11, 12 and 13. By the time I reached clause 13 I was becoming exhausted, so I and my hon. Friends left it at these five clauses for the time being.

A great deal of legislation now takes place through the tertiary form of legislation known as guidance, which is very influential. For example, the guidance to magistrates determines the reality of sentencing in this country. The Bill has a plethora of requirements for the Secretary of State to issue guidance. It is beholden on Members of Parliament at least to read the guidance, so that we can take a view on the impact of legislation on the real world. The problem is that there is no mechanism for scrutinising the guidance, not even an hour-and-a-half debate. There is not even the negative resolution procedure, whereby Members of Parliament could pray against Government guidance being issued.

It is true that there is no requirement for the Government to say in a Bill that a Secretary of State should issue guidance. Secretaries of State can issue guidance willy-nilly. However, given the increasing importance of guidance in setting the practical framework of legislation, there should be a mechanism in place in the House that enables Members of Parliament to be alerted to the guidance and to read it. That is why the amendment also calls for a written ministerial statement to announce that the guidance has been issued and a copy of it placed in the Library. That gives us an opportunity to read it and then to raise with Ministers, through debate, at Question Time or in correspondence, our concerns about it and any issues that our constituents raise about the way in which it is being implemented. Constituents often complain in correspondence about the law, and it turns out that the law says no such thing and that they are in fact complaining about the guidance.

The other reason why we ask for written statements to alert us to the fact that guidance is being issued is that Governments of all complexions have a tendency to slip out less favourable news without alerting people to it. I cite as an example the annual report of the Department for Education and Skills published on 20 June 2005. No press notice was issued, let alone any written statement or even a parliamentary answer. I wonder whether that was because of the number of targets that had been missed. For example, the No. 1 target to raise standards in English and maths so that by 2004 35 per cent. of 11-year-olds would achieve level 5 or above in those subjects was not met. I could go on about the number of missed targets, but I will not. I see you nodding at me gently, Mr. Benton, to tell me that it would not be a good idea to go on.

However, I make a serious point. Our role in the House of Commons is to scrutinise the Executive, and a great deal of Executive action today takes place in a way that is almost designed for us not to see it. The amendment simply puts in place mechanisms to make the job of Opposition and Back-Bench Members of Parliament slightly easier, so that we are alerted to guidance by ministerial statements. Then we can read the guidance in the Library with ease, without having to go to all the effort to ask for it, which can sometimes be quite difficult.

I shall leave it on that note and wait to hear what the Minister and others say on the amendment.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am pleased to deal with that point. I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), as the Government issue a great deal of guidance on child care and education, and the amendments seek to make it clear when and where such guidance is available.

Amendments Nos. 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14 relate to clauses 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 respectively, but they are the same in their effect. They would require that certain statutory guidance is placed in the House of Commons Library and that an announcement is made to MPs through a written ministerial statement. There are four other guidance-making powers in the Bill for which similar amendments could have been tabled if the hon. Gentleman had not, as he freely admitted, become a bit fed up with ploughing through the Bill trying to spot them while he wrote his amendments. I shall not discuss them, as he did not, but a similar idea applies.

I agree that there is absolutely no point in the Government producing guidance that people do not know about. It must be taken note of by the people whom it is intended to assist. I therefore fully agree with the idea that documents should be placed in the Library, but it has been for some time a matter of custom and practice for Departments, irrespective of the party in power, to ensure that that happens. Guidance already exists in the ministerial code and in the deposited papers guidelines for Departments that the House uses. The guidelines state:

“Ministers have undertaken to deposit all framework documents in the Library and departments should ensure that this is done.”

So there is custom, practice and the determination set out in various documents that Ministers take notice of, such as the ministerial code, that that ought to be done.

I shall not stand here and say that all guidance is placed in the Library at exactly the moment it ought to be, but it certainly is all placed there. I asked my parliamentary clerk to have a good look at recent practice, but I have not been made aware of any instances when guidance and other framework documents have not been placed in the Library.

It certainly is not to anyone’s benefit that guidance is hidden in the Library. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the annual report, but it is difficult to argue that such a document could be hidden for long. Members of all parties check departmental annual reports regularly to find out what they say, and I doubt very much, were we to attempt such a thing, that we could sneak them into the Library without anybody knowing about it in pretty quick order, not least because such documents tend to be produced at certain times of the year. Therefore, I do not accept that guidance can be hidden—it is usually too bulky.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

As I was considering the amendment, it occurred to me that a change in the guidance on clause 7 might be to include all two-year-olds in an extension of the pilot scheme, in which case there would be a press release. However, I share the view of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that it is difficult to know when guidance is placed in the Library if there is no press release. In theory, it might be there for three months before MPs discover it. Could the Minister deal with that point?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

As I said, I have some sympathy with the sentiments and intention behind the amendments, but I do not think it necessary to include the amendments in the Bill, given that it is general practice to place guidance in the Library. The guidance that we will produce if the Bill goes through both Houses will make things clear so that those who are bound by the provisions will know fully what we intend to do. It is not in anybody’s interests that these things are hidden. They will be well publicised and sent out to people, including Members of the House.

I hope that hon. Members on the Committee have received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families, which has attached to it a number of documents that set out—helpfully, I hope—some of the thoughts and ideas behind the guidance that we have been talking about and how we intend to exercise the regulatory powers in respect of a number of issues. It would not be sensible for us to attempt to do any of that on the quiet, without there being pretty widespread appreciation of the content of the notes, both among those of us in the House and those in the education and child care world who will have to implement the legislation based on regulations and guidance that are not included in the Bill.

Although I understand the concerns, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the practice, nor is it our intention, to try to hide the publication of such guidance—quite the opposite. I hope that he will agree that it is not necessarily sensible to clutter the Bill with requirements that merely reiterate current practice. I hope that, with those assurances, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am happy to compromise with the hon. Lady in extending the amendment to the other four clauses that I had not got round to drafting amendments for. I agree with her point that these things are placed in the House of Commons Library. I was not accusing civil servants in the Department for Education and Skills of sneaking into the House of Commons in the dead of night with large bulky documents to place on the shelves. However, it is important to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Unless we are alerted to the guidance documents through some mechanism, it is likely that they will reside in the House of Commons Library unnoticed until two or three months down the line, following their implementation at a local level, we start to receive complaints as constituency MPs. Given the importance of guidance in the way in which legislation is implemented, it would be better for us to be alerted to its publication through a ministerial statement.

That said, we have aired the issue in the debate and made the point quite clearly from the Opposition Benches that we would prefer the matters to be included in the Bill and for us to be alerted to guidance by means of a written ministerial statement. I listened to the Minister’s assurance. If I can interpret it as meaning that when guidance is issued by her Department, Members of Parliament who express an interest in education matters will be alerted in some other way, either by press notice or by correspondence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I have just one issue to raise with the Minister. It relates to subsection (1)(a), which states that the

“local authority must secure that early years provision of a prescribed description is available free of charge for such periods as may be prescribed for each young child in their area who ... has attained such age as may be prescribed”.

Will the Minister set out her plans on that point and a timetable for any secondary legislation to be introduced to prescribe the arrangements for the provision of child care that is free of charge? I am aware of the current position, but it is not set out in the Bill. Will she set the record straight on the Government’s policy and intention in relation to subsection (1)(a)?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am happy to do that. The clause sets out English local authorities’ duties to secure prescribed early years provision free of charge. It carries over the current entitlement to free nursery education for three and four-year-olds into the legislative arrangements of the Bill. We know that that entitlement is valued because there are very high take-up rates of the free provision. Figures published by the Department this September showed that in January 2005, virtually all four-year-olds and 96 per cent. of three-year-olds benefited from the free entitlement. It is important that we find a way of securing that entitlement in the new regime of early years provision, instead of having a separation between child care and education.

The hon. Gentleman will know, because he will have read the 10-year child care strategy setting out our intentions, that we are committed to ensuring that children and families continue to benefit from free entitlement and that it is extended. Currently the free entitlement is to 12.5 hours a week for 33 weeks a year in non-maintained settings and 38 weeks a year in maintained settings.

That is the current position and from April, we shall extend the existing offer to all parents. In whichever setting, the entitlement will be extended to 12 and half hours a week for 38 weeks. Part of our ambition is to make the offer 15 hours for 38 weeks for all parents from 2008. An aspiration was expressed in the 10-year strategy to increase it further thereafter, perhaps up to 20 hours a week. The powers in clause 7 enable us to make regulations to implement that plan, which we intend to do. It is fully funded and we are providing additional money in the dedicated schools grant of £82 million a year in order to fund our aspirations until 2008.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

When will the Minister be able to publish a statutory instrument under the provision? Is it likely to be after April next year?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

We have consulted on the provisions that will go ahead from April next year. They have already been regulated for under the current system. As far as the Bill and the extension of provision in future are concerned, as with other regulations under the legislation, we are already drawing up plans and there are details of our intentions in the document to which I referred earlier that my right hon. Friend the Minister circulated to the Committee. From next year, after Royal Assent, we shall be consulting, and thereafter, hopefully by the spring or summer of 2007, the regulations will be in place and ready for implementation.

Clause 8 - Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 5, line 14, at end insert—

‘(1A)Assistance under subsection (1) (a) shall only be forthcoming if the authority has taken into consideration spare capacity by existing providers.’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in page 5, line 16, after ‘assistance’, insert—

‘and services or use of premises in kind’.

No. 92, in page 5, line 21, after ‘willing’, insert—

‘, or is likely to be willing,’.

No. 95, in page 5, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3A)A local authority must establish a complaints mechanism for existing providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities providing childcare themselves.’.

No. 198, in page 5, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3D)If a local authority provides childcare under subsection (3)(b) of this section it shall publish reasons for regarding this as appropriate.’.

No. 246, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—

‘, such guidance to include advice and support to local authorities to promote partnership arrangements with local private and voluntary independent childcare providers.’.

No. 101, in clause 9, page 5, line 43, at end add—

‘(4)The local authority must establish an appeals process appropriate for existing providers who wish to challenge the basis on which that local authority has entered into partnership, or declined to enter into partnership, with them.’.

No. 238, in page 5, line 43, at end add—

‘(4)The Secretary of State shall publish a National Commissioning Framework to establish best practice for partnership arrangements between local authorities’ private and voluntary independent childcare providers.’.

No. 265, in clause 23, page 12, line 4, at end insert—

‘(1A)Assistance under subsection (1)(a) shall only be forthcoming if the authority has taken into consideration spare capacity by existing providers.’.

No. 268, in clause 24, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

‘(4)The local authority must establish an appeals process appropriate for existing providers who wish to challenge the basis on which that local authority has entered into partnership, or declined to enter into partnership with them.’.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

When we considered clause 6 last week, we were identifying the destination we wanted to reach with regard to provision of child care in any local authority area. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the route by which local authorities should get there and stay there. Our amendments would enhance that process—it is a process that local authorities go through—to ensure that they take the necessary steps and have checks and balances in place to ensure that the process is robust and helps us to the final destination that we all want to reach.

Amendment No. 104 deals with the fact that a local authority must consider spare capacity within existing providers. It would engender a good process by which a local authority should consider existing unmet need through spare capacity in an existing market. The amendment would provide some safeguards against the crowding out of a growing number of child care providers, which is a subject we debated last week.

Enabling local authorities to analyse existing spare capacity would force and encourage them to understand why the spare capacity exists in the first place. The amendment would help them understand locational challenges, perhaps with a nursery in the wrong place. Critically, it would force them to consider the quality and type of child care that is evolving in the area in which they seek to ensure that child care provision is sufficient. It would force them also to consider the different ranges of child care provision on offer: which ones parents are keen to take up, which ones are growing, and which ones they are less keen for their children to engage with.

The final aspect of the amendment is that child care provision is an evolving market. Owing to demographic changes, far more women go out to work and family circumstances are changing, with more single-parent families. The market is evolving, and it is important that local authorities take that on board when they consider the sufficiency of provision, how it is represented today and how it is changing.

Considering existing spare capacity would force local authorities to understand which nurseries have plans to grow and which ones are unsuccessful. It would force them to confront the dynamics of the market and whether it meets certain needs. Amendment No. 104 would strengthen clause 6.

Similarly, amendment No. 92 touches on the fact that the market is evolving. Having done an assessment of spare capacity and unmet need for child care provision, there may be a gap, but it may be that it will be filled. The local authority should not only consider how the provision stands, but take on board any plans in place to meet unmet need in child care provision locally. That is important, because it could be a waste of taxpayers’ money for a local authority to provide child care when perfectly adequate and perhaps better quality plans in a better location are already in place to meet that need through other providers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the hon. Lady explain why subsections (1) and (4) of clause 11 would not deal with that? They require local authorities to assess the sufficiency of child care provision in the area. That means that they should have to assess also whether there is unmet need and, if so, how it is to be met. I am not clear why the amendment is necessary.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The amendments seek to ensure that the local authority’s review of unmet need and its assessment of sufficiency are done robustly. In the child care provision under discussion, the market and the need are changing rapidly. Instead of a poor process, any local authority should have and should have to have a process in place that accepts the dynamic in the market. There is a risk that some local authorities may simply consider provision as it stands, without taking on board provision that will be needed in the future.

Amendment No. 91 gives local authorities more flexibility. The Bill refers to them providing assistance to other local child care providers. We want to broaden that reference to include the provision of services and use of premises. Different councils and local authorities are under different amounts of financial duress. We should reflect that in the Bill by giving them the flexibility to use their resource base to provide assistance to child care providers as they see fit. For example, instead of a child care provider renting premises and then having to get assistance with the rent from the local authority, it may be easier for a local authority to give it the use of a building that is not being used. That could be a win-win situation for the local authority, which might also help regeneration.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said several times, I come from an authority where the supply of child care is very low and has been increased only by good partnership. That has often meant the provision of land. Therefore, I support the hon. Lady, but, as this practice has been taking place in my authority over the past eight years, I wonder whether it is necessary to put it in the Bill.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I take on board the hon. Lady’s point, but we are seeking to provide clarity in the Bill. If the clause merely said “assistance”, I might agree with her, but as it refers specifically to “financial assistance”, that additional detail must be correct. Therefore, we want to ensure that the detail is broad enough to capture the other forms of assistance that a local authority may want to provide.

It is always incumbent on local authorities to use their resources to the best value for the taxpayer. If councils can provide non-financial assistance, they may be able to free up financial resources, which they can churn back into providing perhaps even more child care locally than purely through financial assistance. It seems a common-sense amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Amendment No. 95 brings me back to my opening remarks about our amendments strengthening a process, and it is a process that local authorities will go through to assess the sufficiency of local child care provision. We want to make sure that the process contains a complaints mechanism and that those who are concerned about the outcome of the process, particularly providers who are already providing child care locally and who feel that they have been disadvantaged, can flag up their complaints. We believe that the amendment will place a valuable check on the process, which will help the final decision. Complaints mechanisms are used to great effect by companies in industry. Many chief executives will say that most of the improvements in their processes and products have come about as a result of complaints from customers and suppliers or other companies with which they have been working. We must not deprive local authorities of that valuable feedback when they are assessing the sufficiency of local child care provision.

The amendment would insert that safeguard into the Bill and would enable existing providers to challenge a process that they are unhappy about. That would be valuable for two reasons. First, the process may not have been adequate in an individual case and the local authority may not have ensured that its decision does not have a detrimental effect on existing child care providers. Secondly, a challenge may flag up a general problem with the underlying process and approach that a local authority is using to take decisions about providing child care locally. Whether a complaint brings up an individual, isolated problem, or whether it flags up something that is more fundamentally wrong in a local authority process, the amendment will ensure that those problems are uncovered rapidly and on an ongoing basis, because, as we have said, the reality is that local authorities will probably frequently have to reassess whether the sufficiency test is being passed.

Similarly, in relation to amendment No. 198, it is surely in the interests of everybody—whether they are a parent or a child care provider—to understand the basis on which decisions have been taken by the local authority as it goes through the process. Surely transparency must be good. It will engender best practice across local authorities because they will be able to consider the way in which other local authorities have approached the process. They might be able to consider similar local authorities in similar urban or rural areas and get a far better understanding of the situation, thanks to the fact that local authorities would have to be clear cut and publish the criteria by which they made their decisions.

Amendment No. 246 relates to guidance. We talked about guidance earlier this morning. If we are going to have guidance from the Secretary of State, let us ensure that it is genuinely helpful and useful to the local authorities. I support guidance that would encourage local authorities to promote partnerships. A potential risk has been flagged up by research on Sure Start, which shows that there has been a danger that the most disadvantaged children and families have not ended up getting a Sure Start place. There is some merit in ensuring that all parents, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, have more choice, not less. Surely it is positive to include in the Bill provision for guidance that encourages local authorities to promote partnerships with the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

In the context of the process that the Bill is trying to put in place—we have tabled amendments to try to strengthen that process—the guidance will also provide a benchmark against which the performance of local authorities, in putting in place the process, can be judged. That must be valuable. Such guidance will minimise the risk that things will go wrong. It will give local authorities, which are going through a new process, a better chance of getting things right the first time. In the context of the people who will be affected most—not just parents, but most of all children—the guidance will minimise the risk that children will end up having to move nurseries and change child care providers, when that could have been avoided in the first place. That is why we need to be careful with the guidance and ensure that it helps local authorities to get through the process in as good a fashion as possible.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 238 take us to the next stage in the process that a local authority will find itself in. Having made an assessment, ensured that the sufficiency test has been met, considered the existing child care provision locally and taken steps to help meet those needs, the local authority must consider the ongoing provision of child care. Clause 9 relates to how we can ensure that that ongoing provision is well managed and has a good outcome locally. It would be sensible to include amendment No. 101, which puts in place an appeals process. If a local authority goes through the initial assessment and comes up with a theory of how to provide child care locally that everybody agrees with, but, having done that, suggests an implementation process that is not agreed by child care providers, there should be an appeals process for the providers to challenge, if not the theory, the practice.

Amendment No. 238 reflects amendment No. 246. Guidance could be helpful for local authorities in setting up initial provision of child care locally. Once guidance has been given to authorities as to how they manage the relationships that they set up, amendment No. 238 says that there should be a national commissioning framework that will establish best practice for the management of those arrangements. I support these amendments that would include an appeals process and, earlier on in the clause, a complaints mechanism.

These are common-sense amendments that maximise the chance local authorities have to get through a new process in a robust way in order to come up with conclusions that providers are happy with. However, if there is a problem there should be a mechanism by which those decisions can be challenged and amended if appropriate.

The amendments that I have already talked about relate to part 1 and deal with local authorities in England. Amendments Nos. 265 and 268 would align the changes that we wish to make to part 2, which relates to Wales, with those we have suggested for part 1. I look forward to the Minister’s reaction to those amendments and I hope that they can be incorporated in the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I find it difficult to disagree with the objectives of the amendments. However, I am a little cautious because, from my experience, I suspect that some of them might be unnecessary. For example, if land is provided, the local authority has to show that as a grant in another part of the accounts. There is also the caveat that the assistance “includes financial assistance”. I do not want anything unnecessary included, but important points were made.

I have particular sympathy with amendments Nos. 95 and 198 because we want openness and transparency. There is clearly friction in some parts of the country between private, voluntary and local authority providers. That friction can only be addressed by openness and transparency. There is a difficult balance to be struck in not creating more and more bureaucracy for the local authority, but the principles of the amendments are right.

Similarly, the spreading of best practice in partnership working can only be right. We must reflect on the fact that we have had a report from private providers and their association suggesting that there is friction. We need to consider the underlying reasons for that and ensure that we are addressing the problems in the Bill while not creating bureaucracy for authorities that are working perfectly well.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and her pertinent comments.

Amendments Nos. 104 and 265, which are similar, may assist a person who provides or proposes to provide child care, but that assistance would be forthcoming only if the authority has taken into account the considerable spare capacity of existing providers, which my hon. Friend set out so well. We have discussed spare capacity, but it is worth reiterating the point about its cost to the nation. The sectors say that they have something like 126,000 spare places, if we assume a 76 per cent. occupancy rate. That amounts to something like £1.87 billion of capital. Therefore, it is important that the amendment is adopted to ensure that the spare capacity is not wasted. It is a huge sum. In the view of the private and voluntary independent sector, the places would be sustainable and not simply last for just a short time.

When I asked the Minister for her estimate of the number of child care places required that are not being supplied—the essence of why we are in Committee discussing the Bill—she said:

“At September 2005, the total number of (registered) child care places reported from Ofsted stood at 1.22 million. We do not collect national data on the demand for child care places although we have commissioned a number of sample surveys of parental needs and surveys, most recently in 2001”,

which is four years ago. She continued:

“This survey found that a quarter of all households experienced some form of unmet demand in that year. Estimating the supply and demand at the national level is difficult because the child care market operates at a very local level, leading to significant local variation.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 858W.]

That reply echoes something in the 10-year strategy. Paragraph 5.34, on page 40, states:

“Recent policies have resulted in the creation of a large number of childcare places in a relatively short time. However Government programmes and local authorities have been less successful in securing the sustainability of those places.”

Sustainability is important. As my hon. Friend said, we do not want day care centres and nurseries closing, with children being disrupted and sent to other day care providers.

My hon. Friend talked about amendment No. 91. It would expand the definition of assistance that local authorities may provide to child care providers beyond simply that of money. The Bill only mentions financial assistance. On that point, I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. It is important to specify that assistance extends beyond the merely financial. Although it may be the practice for local authorities to provide unused buildings and other services to day care providers, it may not be the case in the future.

When a Bill focuses solely on child care, it is incumbent on us to make it as comprehensive as possible and not to run the risk of a local authority saying, “We have permission to provide financial assistance to you, but we have no permission to provide any other services.” The amendment makes it clear that they will have permission to provide those other services.

I know of an excellent day nursery in Essex with fantastically high standards. It has a waiting list among parents to get their young children into the centre, but it operates out of the changing rooms of a football club. Every day it has to clear up the equipment, put it away in cupboards and bring it out the next day. Despite that, it provides a high level of care. The amendment is sensible.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I do not disagree with the principle whatsoever. As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I thought of the difficulties that local authorities in my constituency are having interpreting the Licensing Act 2003, so he could be right that provision should be clear and in the Bill.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It seems that my rhetoric has persuaded her of the validity of my argument, which is a rare thing in my experience of my speaking ability.

Amendment No. 92 amends clause 8. Clause 8(3) is a crucial provision, but it causes considerable concern among child care providers. It says that a

“local authority may not provide childcare ... unless the local authority are satisfied—

(a)that no other person is willing to provide the childcare”.

That is a good caveat. The amendment would add:

“or is likely to be willing”

to provide child care. It is intended to deal with the situation in which a child care provider may well intend to enter the market but has not submitted an application for planning permission and so on.

The amendment would operate in those rare circumstances when an over-officious local authority goes ahead with providing its own child care, even though it knows full well that somebody is planning to set up a child care facility but has not gone through the procedures of applying for planning permission and all the other licences and permissions that they need. It is about timing and ensuring that people’s plans are not thwarted because of the way in which the clause is drafted.

Amendment No. 95 deals with another part of clause 8(3) that causes concern. Paragraph (b) states that a local authority may provide child care if it thinks that it is appropriate to provide it, even if another person is willing to provide it, and negates entirely the welcome relief provided in paragraph (a). As my hon. Friend said, amendment No. 95 would establish a complaints procedure to which existing providers can turn if a local authority provides child care to the detriment of other provision despite the safeguards in paragraph (a).

The issue is important. In a previous sitting, the Minister gave an example—a decision based on the cost of providing a particular kind of child care for a child with special educational needs—of when it would be appropriate not to take existing child care provision into account. If it seemed that there had been injustice but there was a valid explanation, such as the one that she gave, the complaints procedure would overrule the complaint, but it is important to establish the procedure in the Bill to prevent cases of injustice and business bankruptcies resulting from an over-zealous local authority determined to set up its own provision.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. In the context of the evolution of child care in a local authority area, new third parties, whether private, voluntary or independent, may well be put off providing child care if they think that they may, in the future, be unfairly overruled when they want to expand their provision.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The measure has the feel of a capricious clause. New providers coming into the market may fear that capricious action by a local authority using the provision could drive them out despite the fact that the child care that they provide is appropriate for the area and is of sufficiently high quality.

Amendment No. 198, which I am pleased to say is supported by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, seeks to impose on local authorities a duty to explain why they have used the provision in clause 8(3)(b) to provide child care despite other providers being willing to provide it. The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend are both right in saying that transparency is crucial, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that there is occasionally friction between the private and voluntary independent sector and the local authority if additional provision is provided by local authorities close to existing independent provision.

I can think of reasons other than the one that the Minister gave last week of why existing child care may not be regarded as appropriate. It may be of poor quality—it may be graded as unsatisfactory by Ofsted—or it may be located in an inappropriate location, such as between two busy roads with no pedestrian access so that parents have to take their children across streaming, fast, motorway-type traffic. However, we need to know why the local authority makes its decision. That is terribly important in a democracy.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. There is a question about the motivation behind what he says, as the burden of his amendments suggests that local authorities are engaged in a war against the private and voluntary sector. I simply do not recognise that from my constituency. I do not understand why he thinks that a local authority would be engaged in a war against the private and voluntary sector.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is not a war, but there are many examples throughout England of local authorities establishing child care provision when there is existing provision, which is then driven out. I have an example in my constituency. I cite it cautiously, because the provision that was established was a Sure Start centre, which I support. It is marvellous and is doing fantastic work in Wick, in Littlehampton, but the proposal resulted in closure of the Wickbourne chapel, which was demolished to make way for the new centre. A private and voluntary day care centre was functioning well in the chapel. That day care provider is no longer in the market, and the lady who used to run it is doing something outside child care, which is a great pity. She lobbied me and others hard during the planning stages of the Sure Start centre so that her project could survive. There is another example in my constituency of a primary school that established an early years nursery facility, which again caused a problem for a local provider.

That is why we want the details in the Bill. We do not consider that there is a war. We simply want to ensure that the local authorities and those in their departments who are planning these facilities do their best to take into account surplus capacity and the availability of other providers in the area. There is a tendency in a bureaucracy to press on with one’s work and be oblivious to the consequences that it has on others. I have too many letters containing such examples, as I am sure the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) does, from all walks of life.

Amendment No. 246 amends subsection (6), which again is about guidance from the Secretary of State. It is based on a recommendation from the National Day Nurseries Association. Its extensive research revealed that local authorities are not good at entering into such partnerships. Some local authorities do not even talk to existing child care providers. The Minister said last week that the sample size was only 200, but that is a large number of child care providers to ask detailed questions of. It is wrong of us to dismiss the findings, particularly as 63 per cent., which is more than 120 day care providers, said that they had no confidence in the prospects for child care partnerships with local authorities and 71 per cent.—more than 140 of them—said that local authorities were not yet involving them in the delivery of local child care centres.

The association cites the example of a community day nursery in a disadvantaged inner-city area in Yorkshire. Although it was awarded a “Good” rating by Ofsted, the local authority is excluding it from development of, or involvement in, a new local children’s centre. That specific example provided by the NDNA shows the hon. Gentleman where these things are not working properly in practice. That is why we want clarity.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

The hon. Gentleman may recall that when he referred to the survey at our last sitting, I asked whether it was regulated or had been looked into by the Market Research Society and the British Polling Council. He said that he would go away and find out. Has he?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I have not found out, but a questionnaire sent directly to its members and sent back with the answers, including case studies, is not the same kind of polling as a large sample of 1,000—[Interruption.] Even if it was one day care centre writing to us as Members of Parliament and we cited it, it would not be right for us to dismiss it, let alone 140, 120 or 200 such centres, which have specifically sent us their representations via the NDNA.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

I urge the hon. Gentleman to find out, as this is quite important, and perhaps other members of the Committee agree with me. When he does find out, will he come back and tell us?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I will do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I do not think that the survey will have abided by those recommendations. I proposed that earlier, because it would be a good innovation for local authorities, the state sector and all those engaged in debates on public policy to abide by the new and innovative rules when they participate in opinion surveys and polling. I suspect that existing opinion research outside the polling companies probably does not abide by the recommendations. However, I shall ask the question, and I am sure that the answer will be no.

The Minister for Children and Families said at a conference in June this year:

“In order to achieve our vision of good quality affordable childcare and integrated children’s services, as set out in the 10-year Childcare Strategy, a close partnership between private, voluntary and maintained nurseries, local authorities and parents is essential.”

I am sure that she and her colleague will stand by those words. The amendments would ensure that that partnership happens, is effective and is set out in either the guidance or the Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney expanded ably on the amendments, I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 101 and 268, which are similar to amendment No. 198, but which, instead of instituting a complaints procedure, establish an appeals process that would apply when a local authority has not entered into a partnership with the existing child care providers when seeking to fulfil the new duties. Again, this is a recommendation of the National Day Nurseries Association. It says that penalties could be applied to a local authority if it failed to conduct itself in the way in which the Minister for Children and Families said it should. Those penalties could affect, for example, the local authority’s comprehensive performance assessment rating.

Amendment No. 238 would establish a national commissioning framework to lay down best practice for partnership arrangements between local authorities and the private and voluntary independent sector. Again, that is the recommendation of the NDNA, which explains that models for such commissioning frameworks exist in other sectors, such as long-term care for the elderly and primary care.

On that note, I will leave my comments on the amendments, save for pointing out, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, that there is friction between the PVI sector and local authorities. We seek to do all that we can to alleviate that friction and make the working relationship better regulated and therefore more effective.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I, too, support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, for very much the reasons that have been stated. There is inevitably tension between private providers and public providers, in this case the local authority, when the state decides to create a new service or to roll out an existing service nationally, as it is doing in the Bill. The private child care industry is very big business, and we want it to be big business, because it provides a good service to working parents who would otherwise find it difficult to meet their household bills and look after their children effectively. Therefore, we want to encourage investment in the sector. We also want to encourage private child care providers to come forward and try innovative ideas when looking after our children and giving them good experiences outside the family home. We want investment in the sector, but it must not be put in jeopardy by the local authority’s ability to demolish the business plans of various private providers. That is to put the problem at its strongest.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Why should there inevitably be tension between the local authority and private providers, when, throughout the country, there is much experience of local authorities running effective partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors? I bring to her attention the research to which Conservative Members have been referring, which also says:

“In many respects the recently published Childcare Bill bodes well for encouraging partnerships between local authorities and private providers. Clause 8 of the Bill stipulates that councils may not develop their own childcare facilities alone unless there are no other ‘appropriate’ organisations to do so.”

Why assume, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said, that there will be war between the local authority and private and voluntary providers?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I did not say that tension was inevitable; I just said that the provision creates the prospect of tension between the private provider and the local authority.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I shall just finish.

I do not understand what Labour Members fear. If there is no problem, why not clarify it in the Bill and create a mechanism by which there could be an adjudication process if there were a problem?

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

More bureaucracy.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

There are many ways of doing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, we could apply the model that already applies to care homes. I shall not speak for the Opposition Front Bench, but I am sure that if there were a willingness among Ministers to produce an effective and light-touch regulatory plan, we should be more than happy to consider it. We are merely tabling amendments to probe Labour Members and Ministers about the matter, so that we and the industry can be reassured that there will be no problem.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Lady said—some time ago now—that she was not suggesting that conflict was inevitable. However, as the record will show, the first thing she said when she stood up was that conflict was inevitable.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

There was an incident in my neck of the woods, in Birmingham, although it was to do with the care home sector rather than the child care sector. In Birmingham, when it was controlled by the Labour party, an old person who went into a care home provided by Birmingham city council received almost double the amount of money that they received for other things.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The hon. Lady is straying slightly from the amendment. I request that she return to it.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I perfectly understand why the Chair would wish to upbraid me on that matter. I was merely trying to give an example in an existing sector of conflict between the private industry and the local authority. Inevitably, if two systems are run side by side, there is ample scope for problems.

We are saying that to protect the private nursery child care sector, it ought to have some reassurance in the Bill that there will be no conflict between local authorities—of which there are a fair few examples of a bit of empire building—and others, for which there will be no need for any mechanism, because they take a more enlightened attitude.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North wants to tell me how wonderful the local authority in his constituency is, but we all remember Donnygate.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

That comment is rather unworthy of the hon. Lady. The point that I want to make is not about the local authority in my constituency. Her contribution has been most illuminating. She rails against not the lack of child care provision in this country, which is the purpose of the Bill, and which I thought Opposition Members supported, but the—fictional—empire building of local authorities. There is no empire building. The purpose of the Bill is to expand child care provision and she should bear that in mind during her contribution.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am not sure whether the new Member understands that we look in detail at the provisions of a Bill while in Committee. We are not looking at the wider scope of the Bill, of which we said in the opening remarks—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. The newness of a Member is not relevant; the proper form of address is the hon. Member.

We ought to return to the amendment. References have been made with which everyone in the Committee can agree. We can pick up isolated points across the whole spectrum of local authorities. The point is, however, that we are dealing with this amendment and I have to call a halt to constant comparisons, not just with regard to child care but to other things. We are straying slightly off the amendment and I ask the hon. Lady to come back to it.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

As you rightly say, Mr. Benton, we are considering detailed amendments, and this is a particularly detailed amendment, which is concerned with the provision of child care by either the private or public sectors. We should make it explicit in the Bill—the Government should not be afraid to do this—that there is an appeal process, a procedure or a mechanism. I do not have the words to describe exactly what it might be, but our amendment would do that job amply. Perhaps other amendments the Government might table could do the same. That would reassure the private sector of child care providers that it will not be disadvantaged by local authority decisions that do not seem fair. That is all we are saying.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. The amendment purely provides a safeguard that a decision will be assessed if the local authority got it wrong. Surely the only people who will suffer if a local authority does get it wrong will be children—[Interruption.]

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which got a typical response from Labour Members. She is absolutely right; the provision of good quality child care is extremely expensive and when private operators invest in that way, we want to encourage them. We do not want to discourage them because it is in all of our interests—particularly our children’s interests—if the quality of the provision is good. Therefore, we want to encourage the private sector.

We recognise that there will be private sector failures in the market, in which case there will need to be local authority provision. When the private sector fails—primarily, one presumes, on the basis of insufficient demand for their product at the price offered—we need to ensure that the local authority can get involved. That is a perfectly reconcilable position and there is no reason why Labour Members should have such an allergic reaction to it. It is clearly desired by existing private sector providers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said. I am interested to hear why the Minister wishes to stand against motherhood and apple pie.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Most hon. Members will recall that we had an extensive debate on clause 6 last week, and I hope that, as a result, our intentions are clear. I am not going to repeat all the points I made on Thursday. We want to ensure that the child care market—as I said, it is very different to that of education and other public services—meets the needs of working parents and those in education and training so that they have a choice about how to balance work and family life. The role of local authorities will be to facilitate that child care market so that it meets those needs. They will not be able to fulfil that duty without engaging the private and voluntary sectors. Clause 8 gives them the power to do that. It is our starting point. We must strike the right balance between, on the one hand, giving local authorities the powers and freedoms that they need to act in the best interest of their local area and, on the other hand, requiring them to support a diverse market that allows maximum choice and flexibility for parents.

Let me make a couple of points in response to Opposition Members. First, the process is not new. It has been going on for a number of years, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole reminded us. Local authorities and private and voluntary independent providers have already been working together, developing their relationships and providing the hundreds of thousands of extra places that we talked about last week. Secondly, the views of some Opposition Members in relation to local authorities have been illuminating. They clearly have a generally negative view of local authorities and think that other sectors need protecting from them. Despite protestations about a new kind of politics—we heard this as long ago as the last general election, in relation to the Conservatives’ attitude to local government—they clearly still do not trust local authorities.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I challenge the Minister on that point. I trust my local authority in Wandsworth. It does an excellent job and provides fantastic services for a low tax. It works with many independent private and voluntary organisations. Her point is not true and it is incorrect to make such a sweeping statement.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am only echoing the sweeping statements that we heard from Opposition Members. We did not hear a good example of local authorities working in partnership. Perhaps the hon. Lady is only concerned about Labour-controlled local authorities if she thinks that Wandsworth is doing such a good job. In my experience—I have been travelling the country over the past three or four months, having round-table meetings with not just local authorities but their partners, including private and voluntary independent sector representatives—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I must ask hon. Members, particularly when they have taken part in the debate, to please refrain from writing their Christmas cards in Committee.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Thank you, Mr. Benton.

During those discussions with everybody around the table, including private and voluntary independent providers, I got a much clearer picture of the co-operation that is taking place. There may be individual areas where it is not as good as it should be, but my general view is that all those sectors, led by local authorities, are working well together. I cannot share the general view that has been expressed that we cannot trust them and that they provide child care directly wherever they can and shunt the private and voluntary independent sector out. That is not the case. There are really strong partnerships and I am sorry that Opposition Members have such a negative view.

All the amendments are intended, in one way or another, to protect the interests of the private and voluntary independent sector. The involvement of that sector is important for me. I want to maintain a diverse and contestable child care market. I want the local authorities to go about establishing partnerships in the robust way that the hon. Member for Putney outlined, but we have introduced specific measures in clause 8—particularly in subsection (3), which we have discussed—to ensure that local authorities continue to work with private and voluntary independent providers to ensure that sufficient child care is available for local people. That is why subsection (3) allows local authorities to provide child care themselves only if no other provider is willing to do so or if, having considered all the circumstances—I outlined some of those last week—it is appropriate for them to do so.

Some of the amendments would have what I hope are unintended consequences. Amendment No. 104 would, in effect, limit the ability of local authorities to assist existing child care providers and could have a perverse effect, as some settings are likely to have vacancies at some time. The National Day Nurseries Association report acknowledges that take-up of places is seasonal. If some parents do not use all of an 8 am to 6 pm day but bring their child for part of a day or for part-time sessions, there will be gaps. When providers develop their business plan, they must take into account the fact that vacancies result from the way in which parents use child care.

Amendment No. 91 seeks to ensure that a local authority could provide services or the use of premises in kind. I assure the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that we refer specifically to financial assistance in the Bill because, legally, we must make it absolutely clear that local authorities can spend money. It is not necessary to specify every kind of assistance that they can provide, but, as is already the case, assistance with premises and other facilities and matters is included. Local authorities will have power to offer such assistance.

Amendment No. 92 would insert the words

“or is likely to be willing”

in the clause. The hon. Gentleman may have had a chance to review the documents that I circulated last night. I hope that he will note when we get to amendment No. 11 that we will insist on a robust process of assessment of need that will encompass anybody who is thinking of becoming a child care provider. It is not necessary to include his words in the Bill.

Several amendments deal with complaints and complaint routes. If a provider feels unfairly treated as a result of a process in which they must be centrally involved, they can complain through existing routes, some of which I outlined last week, and, if there has been maladministration, to the local government ombudsman. Beyond that, there is the opportunity for judicial review if there is a serious failure or illegal or irrational behaviour by the local authority. Ofsted will inspect local authorities against the new duties, and it can and will receive complaints from parents or providers. Therefore, I am not convinced that another complaint or appeals mechanism as suggested in the amendments would be more effective, but it certainly would be another call on the public purse and an inefficient use of public funds.

I entirely agree with the intention behind amendment No. 198 and can say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and other Opposition Members that the guidance will require local authorities to publish their reasons for providing child care themselves for a particular child or group of children. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 246 would insert in subsection (6) a clarification of what should be included in the guidance that we shall issue. I can confirm that it will promote good partnership practice, and we want to include some examples of best practice that local authorities can emulate.

Amendment No. 238 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national commissioning framework that sets out best practice for partnership arrangements between local authorities and private and voluntary sector providers. We must understand that we cannot develop flexible, local, responsive child care with command and control from the centre. I explained last week that the centralised approach was necessary initially to bring us up to something like a reasonable number of child care places, and for the significant increase that there has been. However, to go beyond that and achieve the flexibility that parents need in the system, action must be taken at a local level in response to local circumstances and conditions, existing child care, labour market patterns and the working hours of parents. It can be done only through strong partnerships at a local level. Opposition Members must understand that our job is to support and strengthen those partnerships, because people at that local level will have to deliver the provision for local parents.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

This is not about top-down prescription and command and control from the centre; it is about having a framework for best practice, so that local authorities can learn how best to do things, rather than reinvent the wheel 173 times throughout local education authorities in England. Surely, the Minister can understand why a national commissioning framework would be beneficial to local authorities. That is why it exists for other local authority functions.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Opposition Members are confused. A national commissioning framework means a national framework for the commissioning of child care. It is not guidance about best practice on working together. They are two completely different things.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about best practice, and to support the children’s trust arrangements we have already issued statutory guidance on partnership arrangements, inter-agency work and other co-operation to improve the well-being of children. It includes practical guidance on how the public sector can and should work in partnership with service providers from all sectors, including private and voluntary.

I am not convinced that there is any need for further guidance; and there is certainly no need for a national commissioning framework. It is important that those relationships and the implementation of what emerges from them are conducted at a local level.

Amendments Nos. 265 and 268 relate to Wales. It is important to leave the specifics of those issues to the Welsh Assembly Government. They are a matter for colleagues in Wales, and they are committed also to ensuring a diversity of providers. Significant funding has been provided, and the Welsh Assembly will take forward all provisions for Wales in relation to their own circumstances.

Some of the amendments are unnecessary because we intend to implement the measures that they seek, and I am not convinced of the need for the other amendments, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the lead amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to the Minister, and I should like to make several comments. She said that the PVI sector’s concerns about local authorities establishing child care places when there is capacity in the area were not new. She is right: it is not a new process, and there are many examples throughout England of good practice and good partnership arrangements. However, I was lobbied by the NDNA long before the Bill was published—

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Lobbied?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The NDNA expressed to me as a Member of Parliament its concerns that before the Bill was published, provision was already in place for local authorities to drive out private sector provision by establishing child care places in maintained schools or Sure Start centres, or under the neighbourhood nurseries initiative. It has been a long-term concern, and I suspect that it even pre-dates this Administration.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

It would be interesting to know whether my hon. Friend had the following experience in his constituency, because it very much happened in mine. When the Government introduced nursery places in mainstream schools, they drove out many pre-school groups in my constituency, many of which were upset. Therefore, there is, inevitably, a tension.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend is right. This is not a party political point, but a concern of the PVI sector that the Bill gives us an opportunity to address. Everything does not have to boil down to Labour versus Conservative on these issues. The independent sector is genuinely concerned about what is happening, and this would be a good opportunity to address that concern.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

It is clear in the Bill that we envisage local authorities as the provider of last resort in this further expansion of child care by the Government. The Local Government Association has welcomed the inclusion of that provision in the Bill, not only because it does not want to have to provide extensive new state facilities, but because it wants to work with the private and voluntary independent sector.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not disagree with the Minister, but human fallibility is inevitable. When we are drafting legislation and a new framework, we must take into account poor practice and legislate to try to minimise its likelihood. It is not about Opposition Members not trusting local authorities; it is not a question of trust. The state sector, whether local or national, has huge advantages: being in the state sector gives one huge advantages over the private sector in terms of lack of risk and the resources available. Our amendments would simply ensure that the statutory arrangements are as fair as possible for those who do not have the benefit of working in the state sector, but are living in the private and voluntary sector and trying to survive in difficult circumstances. I also agree with the Minister that we want a diverse and contestable child care sector. I believe that our amendments will help to deliver that.

The Minister mentioned vacancies. In any fluid arrangement there will be vacancies. The amendment does not aim to ensure that every last vacant place with every PVI child care provider space in the area is used up before the local authority can intervene. If it is drafted in such a way that that would be the unintended consequence and the Minister will give me an assurance that she will come back with a better drafted amendment that makes the same point, I shall happily accept that. However, we want to make sure that, when there is an occupancy rate of 76 per cent. and child care providers already exist a few hundreds yards from where a local authority may wish to set up a new provision, that is taken properly into account and that the safeguards, complaints procedures and appeals procedures are in place to assist when things go wrong.

The Minister’s answers on financial assistance are welcome, and we shall not press our amendment on that point. I also take her point about judicial review. I remain unconvinced by her assertion that Ofsted can somehow receive complaints. It is not about Ofsted’s inspections of child care provisions and their quality, but about the local authority. Although Ofsted will also inspect the local authority, such inspections take place every few years and will not be in time to deal with a specific complaint about a specific provision that immediately drives out a private sector or voluntary provider.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

Surely, if the amendment is accepted, it will not be only providers who can challenge a local authority decision; the parents may also want to challenge it, and it is important that a mechanism exists by which they can do so. The Bill contains nothing that would provide that mechanism, and it would be a sensible provision to include.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which reminds me of the Littlehampton example that I cited earlier. I did not receive correspondence simply from the child care provider who had to move out of Wickbourne chapel. I also had a lot of letters from the parents of toddlers attending that child care facility. They were happy with the facility and therefore very concerned. In that particular instance there was no issue related to poor behaviour by the local authority; it was just that the chapel was being demolished. However, there are many examples in which the local authority has not behaved as it should have done and, under the provisions of the amendment, that would be an ideal opportunity to submit an official complaint.

In respect of amendment No. 198, I am delighted to hear the Minister’s assurance that reasons for using the provision under 8(3)(b) must be given and will be issued in the guidance to local authorities.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we had had sight of some of that guidance we could have saved a lot of time?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. During our break I will be swotting up on the guidance that has been issued in relation to clause 11. However, sight of the guidance relevant to the clause would have been helpful, because if we had seen it in advance of these proceedings, we would not have needed to table amendment No. 198. It would still be nice to have had the guidance now—it may contain other things that reflect the Minister’s assurance that the guidance will specify that local authorities should give reasons when they use clause 8(3)(b) to provide child care, if appropriate, even when there is child care provision already in place. The Minister’s assurance that the guidance related to amendment No. 246 will promote good partnership practice is also welcome.

On that note, I would be happy to withdraw those amendments, but I am still concerned about the issue of the complaints procedure. When we reach amendment No. 95 in the proceedings, I would like to urge my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee to support it.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will put amendment No. 95 when we come to that point but, for good order’s sake, the mover of amendment No. 104 must withdraw the amendment.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 25, leave out subsection (4).

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 199, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out from ‘person’ to ‘for’.

No. 97, in clause 17, page 9, line 18, at end insert

‘such circumstances to be transparent and equitable.’.

No. 267, in clause 24, page 12, line 13, leave out from ‘person’ to ‘for’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment would remove subsection (4) from the clause. Subsection (4) says that subsection (3), which concerns local authorities not providing child care for a particular group of children unless they are satisfied that no one else is willing to provide it, does not apply to child care provided by a maintained school. We heard examples earlier of a more familiar situation where primary schools have established early years child care provision that has driven out private and voluntary sector independent provision.

It seems odd that all the safeguards in subsection (3) dealing with situations where no other person is willing to provide such child care do not apply when local authorities are deciding whether one of their primary schools should be able to expand by setting up, for example, a pre-school class for three and four-year-olds. That is also the view of the National Childminding Association, the child care organisation 4Children and the Daycare Trust, the last of which says:

“in making a judgment about the most appropriate provider to meet parents’ and children’s needs, the Local Authority should judge childcare provided by a school in just the same way as it does with every other local provider.”

It goes on to say:

“This subsection undermines the creation of a level playing field between schools and the PVI sectors.”

It is not a matter of Opposition Members being hostile to local authorities; we are merely reflecting the genuine concern of those in the private and voluntary sectors. The Daycare Trust goes on to say:

“it is very important that schools play their full and vital part in local childcare planning arrangements—as well as in the wider Every Child Matters process of which childcare is a key part. However, this subsection seems to set schools outside this local framework, schools need to be more engaged not less in the work of wider children’s services.”

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

I have great respect for some of the organisations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I would like to ask him about his amendment. It seems to me that schools are in a different category from other forms of provision because there is an advantage in terms of stability, custom and practice in kids going to pre-school classes in a primary school and then going on to the school itself. To see local authorities as providers of last resort does not seem to make sense.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention slightly concerns me because he gives the impression that he would prefer pre-school arrangements to take place in primary schools, despite the existence of high-quality child care facilities and provision elsewhere. He talks about stability and custom and that it is better for children to have their pre-school child care arrangements in a primary school setting as part of the process of getting ready for reception year and key stage 1. That is not necessarily the case; there is some very good PVI sector provision. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s comments reflect Government policy—thank goodness—but it would be a pity if we were to decide to have all pre-school child care arrangements in primary schools and drive out the PVI sector.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of polarising the matter between private and local authority provision? I do not know what experience he has had in his constituency, but in mine there have been very successful partnerships between school governing bodies and private providers, where private providers have come into the school and provided wrap-around child care after children have finished their nursery education. That has been to the advantage of the local authority and the private sector. Governing bodies do not necessarily want to be bothered with the aggravation of employing additional staff. We are in danger of polarising the question and not taking account of successful partnerships throughout the country.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The hon. Lady makes a good point and she is right. There are successful partnerships that involve private sector bodies coming in, almost like management teams, and running facilities in existing schools, rather than providing child care on their own premises. No one can oppose that. I am sure that we will see a lot more of that as wrap-around provision increases throughout the sector.

When considering the wording of a Bill, one must take into account extreme examples of what might happen and ensure that it does not. When I say “extreme examples”, we should remember that these things are more prevalent than we would wish. We need to ensure that the Bill is drafted in the best way and takes into account every possible contingency.

It is not just the organisations that I mentioned that support the amendment. It is also the Early Childhood Forum, which has said:

“We are concerned over the implication in Clause 8(4) that schools will be exempt from the requirement to ensure that there are no other settings which can provide the needed childcare in their area. Given the extended autonomy for schools which is envisaged in other new legislation”—

which no doubt the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will support—

“this could result in schools acting independently of the local authority’s planning arrangements for a rational and mixed economy of childcare in an area. This, in turn, could adversely affect the viability of private and voluntary sector providers and childminders as well as restricting choice for parents.”

There is concern that the provision seems to take the maintained sector out of the planning arrangements.

The Local Government Association, which the Minister cited earlier, is also concerned. In relation to subsection (4), it says:

“In making a judgment about the most appropriate provider to meet parents’ and children’s needs, the Local Authority should judge childcare provided by a school in just the same way as it does with every other local provider. The LGA is very keen to ensure that schools play their full and vital part in local childcare planning arrangements.”

I do not see how the Minister can resist the amendment, given that it is supported by the LGA, the Early Childhood Forum, the National Childminding Association, 4Children and the Daycare Trust. I look forward to hearing her response to that amendment. [Interruption.] Indeed—that irresistible amendment.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

It is resistible.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I see. That is a pity.

Amendment No. 199 relates to clause 9(1), which is about ensuring that local authorities have proper, enforceable contractual arrangements in place with child care providers so that when financial assistance is given, and it comes to defining which child care providers the clause applies to, reference to children in ordinary schools is omitted. This point is similar to the earlier one, which is why the amendments have been grouped together. Amendment No. 199 would leave out the words in parenthesis—

“other than the governing body of a maintained school”—

from clause 9(1). It seems odd to remove maintained schools, given that the local authority may well provide schools with assistance for pre-school children. Surely the local authority needs to be sure that it will receive value for money. Given the example that was supplied, I wonder whether, if there was a private sector provider managing pre-school child care provision in a primary school, the phrasing in clause 9(1) would prevent the local authority from being able to recover any financial assistance from that private sector provider because it was operating in a maintained school and perhaps under the aegis of the governing body of that school. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s response on that technical point. There is a general, wider point about the provision in maintained schools. There should be measures to enable a local authority to recover any money, or other penalties, from a maintained school if it is not delivering the services that the authority has paid for.

Amendment No. 97 amends clause 17, which is about enabling maintained schools to charge for child care. That seems logical in order to create a level playing field with private and voluntary sector child care providers. The amendment merely inserts the requirement that the circumstances under which charges are made are transparent and equitable.

The National Union of Teachers has raised the issue of a child with special educational needs who may be attending a school before the age of three. In its briefing on the clause, the NUT says:

“Clause 17 will permit charging for education provision in schools if a registered child is below the age prescribed in clause 7 for free early years provision”.

That is age four. The NUT goes on:

“If the age is set at three what are the implications for children under three in maintained schools? It is not unusual for a child with a statement of special educational needs to attend a maintained special school below the age of three. This is an issue which will need teasing out in parliamentary debate.”

Perhaps the Minister will respond to the teasing in due course and put it on the record that there will be no charging in the circumstances described by the NUT.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am supposed to add to the list of hon. Members supporting amendments Nos. 9 and 199 myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). I did submit it independently rather than signing up to it and I saw it as a probing amendment, because it seemed odd that the governing body of a maintained school should be excluded instead of being alongside all the other players. We give governing bodies a great deal of independence now and I thought that they would be embraced by the local authority within the general commissioning role and the general duty to achieve sufficiency.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made an interesting intervention, and I can think of an excellent example of a school in my constituency. The private providers in that school have been dependent on financial assistance from the local authority, so I am not sure why subsection (4) is necessary to protect an arrangement of that kind. I would have hoped that it would all be part of the general partnership. Amendment No. 199, to which I have added my name, relates to the same point of principle.

As members of the Committee will be aware, I do not have a hang-up about private being best and public being not so good. I am enthusiastic about partnership working and I see it working well, but I cannot see why the governing body of a maintained school cannot submit plans alongside any other plans in the area, with the local authority making a judgment. I do not see why there should be almost an assumption for a preferment.

I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who made the point that many parents will choose, particularly for three and four-year-olds, to have nursery provision on a school site, because it creates a good transition to the school and is convenient when they are dropping other children off at the same school. We are offering parents choice, so I do not see why we should be constrained in any way. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the amendments, because I cannot see the point of singling out one set of providers: all the providers could be part of the competition, choice and local authority commissioning as appropriate.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope that I can explain the distinctions that are already in the Bill, with which the amendments seek to deal.

Overall, the amendments would place maintained schools within the restrictions of local authority powers in relation to the provision of funding and charging for child care. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, amendment No. 9 would remove the exemption of governing bodies of maintained schools from the restrictions in subsection (3) on local authority provision. In practice, that would mean that maintained schools could not provide child care unless the local authority determined that no other provider was willing to provide it, or that it would be appropriate for the maintained school to provide child care itself.

Amendment No. 97 would require that the circumstances set out in regulations in which schools are able to charge for early years provision would have to be “transparent and equitable”, but the effect of the amendment is unclear. That is quite something for an amendment that is trying to promote transparency. Obviously, some good drafting was involved, and, as a result, I am not completely convinced that I know what it would mean in practice.

Amendment No. 199 would give local authorities in England the power to claw back funding allocated to maintained schools to provide child care. Amendment No. 267 would give the same power to Welsh local authorities. Overall, the amendments seek to place maintained schools, and the provision that they make, within the restrictions of provider of last resort, which we debated earlier in subsection (3). To achieve good provision, it is important that maintained school providers and private and voluntary independent sector providers work together. It is sensible that that happens. I believe that that has been proven on the ground, and several hon. Members gave examples from their constituency.

We do not want wars between providers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said earlier. All members of the Committee—certainly the Government—value the work of private and voluntary independent providers. They already assist in the work of many schools in maintained settings, and they have an important role to play in the development of child care that is accessible through schools. There is no doubt about that.

We want to encourage child care that is provided by private or voluntary independent sector providers, perhaps using a school site and making the best use of school facilities that otherwise would be closed. Alternatively, providers might work with schools to put in place supervised transfer arrangements to nearby venues. Many schools already do such work with the sector to deliver child care in that way. We anticipate that many more schools will wish to do so. We all know that the private and voluntary sector has good experience and skills that schools can benefit from when they develop child care.

The hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole commented on amendment No. 9. The general concern appears to be that we are creating an uneven playing field that in some way disadvantages one provider against another. I want to give some reassurances in that regard.

There are already checks in the system to try to ensure that there is no bias against private, voluntary and independent sector providers as opposed to maintained settings and provision in schools. For example, when exercising its powers under section 27(1) of the Education Act 2002 to provide community facilities or services for pupils or their families at the school, the governing body of a maintained school is required by section 28(4) to consult the local authority.

If the local authority disagrees with the school’s proposal to develop child care, it can register that during the consultation period, as can anybody else. Therefore, if a local private or voluntary sector provider has such concerns, it too can register objections. If the school were to persist in its plans against the objections and without some kind of resolution, the local authority could decide not to provide funding. It is not forced to provide funding for provision if it does not believe that it will fill a need, or if it believes that there is some duplication. That is one system of checks and balances in the system.

We have also said recently that we would introduce legislation to require schools to have regard to their local children and young people’s plan, which covers all children’s services, including child care. That is another way in which there will be proper planning across the entire field in a local area. Local authorities will have to consult schools on the plan and that is a further check to ensure that there is not needless duplication across existing good quality provision. The conditions already impose greater restrictions on schools when developing child care than those in place for competing private and voluntary sector providers. Private providers are not subject to any such constraints.

I come now to amendment No. 97. Clause 17 amends the Education Act 1996 to enable schools to charge parents for the delivery of any early years provision over and above that already paid for by public funding and which takes place during school hours. The amendment requires any such circumstances to be transparent and equitable, which has left me in some difficulty in working out how we could possibly do that. The hon. Gentleman wants the local authority to behave in a way that is open and accessible for those who have an interest in this. That is commendable and we can all agree with the spirit of that, but we certainly do not want parents or anyone else in a local area to be confused by charging powers or treated unfairly as a result of clause 17.

We know that enabling parents to purchase additional early years provision for their children over and above their free entitlement helps families, many of whom are working families. We also recognise that charging in schools is a very sensitive matter and parents would not want to think that it is being expanded beyond bounds that are clearly and easily understood. We know that it needs to be handled carefully, and we can give an assurance that it will be. Pretty robust guidance will be issued as part of our guidance to schools on sustaining extended services to make it clear when such services can be charged for and when they cannot.

Therefore, even if the amendment were clear in its operation and practical impact and were not technically defective, it would not be right to include it on the face of‘ the Bill. However, we can all agree across the Committee that parents and people in the local area need to be clear about when they can be charged and upon what basis. They also need to be certain that that does not extend into something undesirable. If that is the concern that the amendment sought to address, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be thoroughly and robustly addressed in the guidance. I hope that that is enough to persuade him not to press amendment No. 97.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 199 and 267 to clauses 9 and 24. Those clauses are closely based on the existing provision in section 153 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to nursery education. The amendments seek to give the local authority powers to claw back funding allocated to maintained schools to provide child care in the same way as they have the power to do in respect of other providers. Some concern was expressed that this might be unfair on those other providers and that there was not a level playing field.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made a point about a private provider in a maintained school and whether clawback would still operate under the Bill without the amendment if there were some lack of compliance with requirements. The exemption as it exists in the legislation applies only where a school governing body directly provides major provision. The situation that the hon. Gentleman suggested of a PVI provider not meeting requirements even though the setting was within a maintained school would still enable clawback to take place.

A point was made about implications for children under three with statements of special educational needs. The Bill should not disrupt existing arrangements in respect of children under three where such children are placed in maintained provision. There are small numbers of such children in school placements, and they will continue to receive the provision set out in their statement without there being any implications for that from the changes that we are suggesting.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I listened carefully to the wording of that assurance and the Minister said that the Bill should not disrupt “existing” arrangements. Can she assure the Committee that future arrangements will apply in the same way and that the Bill will not affect future arrangements for future children?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

That is certainly what we envisage. We do not anticipate that those arrangements will be changed in any way by the legislation.

The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about why there is clawback for one sector and not for another. I hope that I can give him some reasons as to why there is, on the face of it, a different approach. Clauses 9 and 24, with which his amendments Nos. 199 and 267 deal, require local authorities, when entering into contracts with non-maintained settings to develop child care provision for children of any age, to have regard to guidance made by the Secretary of State. The guidance can include a requirement to ensure that contracts provide for repayment of financial assistance from those settings if contractual requirements are not met.

The key to all this is that we are talking about contractual arrangements. The amendments would enable local authorities to require repayment of financial assistance from schools and other maintained providers for the development of child care if the conditions set were not met. However, there is already a significant array of stringent requirements in relation both to quality of service and to the management of delegated budgets, through which money to make the provision is made available to maintained settings. Those measures give local authorities significant power to ensure that they are getting value for money. They are not contractual arrangements, but they are extremely stringent and effective. Local authorities already have in place detailed and well established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings, which ensure that local authorities can get value for money and that, once money is out of the door, it does not disappear off in pursuit of some purpose for which it was not given.

The purpose of a clawback power in respect of contractual arrangements is to try to ensure that there is robust accountability and value-for-money levers. That will enable the local authority to satisfy its auditors and the Audit Commission, which consider whether public money that has been handed out is being used for the purposes for which it is meant. Funding that supports child care provision will be released to schools by the local authority only following the consultation process that schools are required to undertake. Local authorities will release funding only if they are satisfied that the provision is needed and will not duplicate existing high-quality provision.

I have explained why there is a particular arrangement for PVI providers and why the way in which we deal with maintained settings is envisaged to be different. That is not because the arrangement is less stringent. In fact, a local authority chief executive might tell us that it is much more stringent. A school might tell us that it is much more stringent to have to cope with the local authority descending on it to see how it is managing its delegated budgets. The arrangement is different, but no less stringent.

That is why we do not agree with the amendments, which the hon. Gentleman thought were irresistible at the beginning. I do not necessarily expect him to agree that his amendments are resistible, but I hope that he will at least understand the argument that I have used to resist them and that, in view of the explanation that I have given him, he will consider withdrawing amendment No. 9 and not pressing the other amendments.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive response. I take her point on amendment No. 97. My drafting skills were not at their best while I was drafting it. I am also reassured by her assurance that there will be robust guidance on the services for which schools can charge. It will be helpful when we see that guidance in due course.

I am also happy with the Minister’s response to the point raised by the National Union of Teachers about existing and future arrangements for children with a statement of special educational needs who are in a special maintained school, and that there is no possibility of charges being imposed on those children by the provision.

I am partially convinced by the Minister’s comments on amendments Nos. 199 and 267—local authorities already have the power to claw back or deal with maintained-sector schools that do not provide the quality of child care that they have agreed to provide—given that they are all within the state sector.

Where I am not convinced is in response to amendment No. 9. The Minister’s responses were weak. That is not her fault; she is able to put the best face on any argument of any Minister. However, the arguments do not stack up, and the Government should accept the amendment.

The Minister basically said that checks were in place. She gave the example that a governing body is required to consult the local authority before the body sets up pre-school child care provision within its primary school. That is not a safeguard. Of course it is required to consult, but then what? She said that if the local provider wants to, it can register an objection. If the school persists in going ahead with the provision, despite the objection, the local authority can refuse funding. The question is: will it?

By removing subsection (4), the amendment would make it a duty of the local authority to take into account the availability of local existing child care provision when deciding whether a school can establish its own child care provision. The existing so-called checks are weak. The Minister’s arguments in resisting the amendment are weak, too.

The Minister also says that schools must have regard to the children and young person’s local plan. Again, it is a weak argument for resisting the amendment— particularly given its irresistibility. She must come up with much stronger arguments than the one that she provided.

The Minister then made the extraordinary comment that private providers are not subject to the various constraints of having to consult local authorities and receive local objections. Of course they are not. People operating child care provision in the private or voluntary sectors have the market place for their accountability. Of course they do not have to go through those various processes. Their accountability is to people who want to pay to send their children to attend child care provision.

In view of the weakness of the Minister’s argument, I feel inclined to push amendment No. 9 to a vote.

Clause 9 - Arrangements between local authority and childcare providers

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I thought that this might be an opportunity to get a little more detail from the Minister about financial assistance. The clause concerns arrangements between a local authority and the provider of child care which involve financial assistance from the former to the latter. Clarity on the Government’s intentions would be helpful. Will that financial assistance help with the capital cost of providing child care places or will it subsidise the running costs of child care places, or will it be a combination of both?

In paragraph 5.1 on page 34 of “Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy”, it says:

“The Government’s vision is that all families with children aged up to 14 will have an affordable, flexible, high quality childcare place for their child that meets their particular circumstances. In addition, support should be available for finding care outside these hours where necessary.”

Paragraph 5.2 says:

“To meet our commitment a new duty will be placed on local authorities who will be responsible for ensuring that local childcare needs are met, working with central government to make sure that services are both affordable and of a high quality standard wherever families live.”

What does that mean in practice? The child care strategy goes on to say:

“parents will be expected to contribute to the cost of childcare, supported through the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit and any subsidy to the provider.”

My understanding of that is that the principal means by which the Government intend to make child care affordable is through the child care element of the working tax credit. Moreover, they intend for all three and four-year-olds to receive a full 38 weeks of free early education and child care from 2006. The Minister alluded to that. That means, according to page 51 of the 10-year strategy,

“an extension of the 12.5 hours of free childcare for all three and four year olds to 15 hours for 38 weeks a year for every three and four year old by 2010, on the way to the vision of 20 hours a week for 38 weeks a year”.

The Government have said that the principle behind financial assistance—indeed, behind their entire child care strategy—is what they call “progressive universalism”. That is probably the first time that that phrase has been uttered in this Committee, and that surprises me. What does it mean, Mr. Benton? It means help for all and additional support targeted on those who need it most. The way in which the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is nodding, I half suspect that he invented the phrase in an earlier existence—but perhaps not.

The increased number of child care places is as a result of the working tax credit, which is a demand-side subsidy funded by central Government. Furthermore, supply-side subsidies, through the neighbourhood nurseries initiative, have provided for about 45,000 child care places. Central Government funds those also, as they do free places for three and four-year-olds in schools and nurseries. Other initiatives include the new opportunities fund subsidies for out-of-school child care and the Sure Start programme.

The Government’s position is summarised in paragraph 7.4 on page 52 of the 10-year strategy. It says:

“in common with other countries the Government invests in childcare on both the supply side and the demand side. On the supply side payments are made direct to the provider to support and procure provision. On the demand side, payments are made to parents to help with the cost of childcare”.

Paragraph 7.5 continues:

“In addition to providing the universal free part-time early education for three and four year olds, the Government sees an enhanced role for supply side subsidies in driving up quality and ensuring sustainability. The Government also sees a continuing and enhanced role for the childcare element of WTC in helping to make childcare more affordable for families.”

I set that out, Mr. Benton, in an attempt to understand what financial assistance local authorities are being given the duty to provide to child care providers. Is it a supply-side subsidy, in which case is it a capital subsidy to help establish more child care places, or is it a revenue subsidy to help to keep the costs down for parents? If it is the latter, will it be universal or will it be targeted at those who need it most? If the assistance is meant to be a demand-side subsidy, how will that work in practice? Finally, can the Minister set out how the new duty is fully funded? What elements of the support to local authorities are earmarked and covered by the new duties?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading out chunks of the 10-year strategy, and not even opposing any of them. That is good because it means that we are all together on the Committee in our aspiration to improve child care provision across England for our youngest children, which the Government greatly welcome.

Clause 9 relates to the funding arrangements that local authorities make with child care providers. Authorities may make payments to providers in two ways: first, for those who supply the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds under clause 7; secondly, under the powers to grant financial assistance under clause 8. We have debated those, but the hon. Gentleman asks now for detail about the power in clause 9 that allows local authorities to place conditions on funding. He asked a number of questions about whether it is demand-side, supply-side, revenue or capital. It is many of those things; it could be revenue or capital. The hon. Gentleman asked earlier today what the proposed extension to access to early years provision is—the free entitlement, if we might call it that. The Committee will recall that we set out our aspirations. We have definite funded plans to increase it from 33 to 38 weeks per year, and from 12.5 to 15 hours per week in maintained and non-maintained settings from next April. That will then go up from 15 hours per week with an aspiration to go further, perhaps up to 20 hours per week, the funding for which we have not yet sorted out in the spending review.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we have plans to extend the provision of children’s centres. Perhaps he will think of those as Sure Start centres, but they will in future be children’s centres. We expect to have 2,500 by 2008 and 3,500 by 2010. The extra funding that will go to local authorities to establish and run children’s centres will be capital and revenue, through various spending grant streams. On the demand-side and supply-side subsidy, he referred to the child care element of the working tax credit. He was right to quote the Government: that is how we envisage making it affordable for those at the lower end of the income scale. We might call it progressive universalism. I do not know who invented that term, but it seems to be a good way of ensuring that those who did not have access to child care in the past have such access, hopefully with the laudable and—across the Committee—welcome consequence of giving every child a great start in life. That, after all, is what child care is mainly about.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, there will be financial support, in the form of both revenue and capital, for the establishment and running of the children’s centres. Through tax credits, we are already seeing £2 million a day going into the tax credit subsidy for those at the lowest end of the income scale, to ensure access for those who would not otherwise have it. It is a combination of all the matters that he raised. The power to make all that available is contained in clause 9. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that it is important that it stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Duty to assess childcare provision

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 13, at end insert

‘, which should have regard to the demands and needs of families as set out in section 6.’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 86, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—

‘(1A)An assessment under subsection (1) must include the childcare needs of children whose parents are not working.’.

No. 272, in page 6, line 13, after ‘assessments”’, insert

‘which must include an assessment of—

(a)the supply of childcare provision available locally, and

(b)the childcare requirements of parents living in the area’.

No. 271, in page 6, line 23, after ‘criteria’, insert

‘which must include an assessment of the quality of the childcare provision available locally’.

No. 304, in clause 26, page 12, line 40, at end insert—

‘(2A)Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision requiring a local authority to review an assessment following the provision of relevant evidence, not previously considered, by parents.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment would define in a little more detail what is meant by the word “sufficiency” in subsection (1). It brings in the wording used in the 10-year strategy, which states:

“The new duty will require local authorities to actively monitor the demands ... and to ensure that provision is responsive to their needs.”

The amendment would guide the local authority when it is assessing the sufficiency of the provision of child care to take into account locally expressed opinion about what is needed and not simply the preconceived views of what constitutes sufficiency.

Amendment No. 86 would extend the duty on local authorities to assess the sufficiency of child care in relation to the demands and needs of working families and to extend that assessment to determining whether there are sufficient child care places to cover the needs of non-working parents, too. As the brief from the four children’s organisations 4Children, the Daycare Trust, the National Childminding Association and the Pre-School Learning Alliance said, early childhood is a time of vital importance in children’s development. Children’s experiences in the earliest years of their life are critical to their subsequent development. Quality early education is the most important factor bar none in determining a child’s life chances. They should be enjoyable, secure years, but full of fun and challenge. They are a time when children develop rapidly—physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially.

It is the children who are important, rather than the convenience of parents. That is why the 10-year strategy states:

“Evidence from the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network suggests that good quality care can boost cognitive skills and language. Evidence from the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project shows an early start to pre-school can have significant positive effects on children’s cognitive and social development. For example, every additional month of quality pre-school from the age of two improves cognitive performance at the start of school ... Those who started in a good quality pre-school at two or younger were up to 10 months ahead of those without pre-school. The EPPE evidence also shows that an early start in pre-school improves children’s social skills at entry to school.”

It is the quality that is the issue. The 10-year strategy gives an example of evaluation from the early “Head Start” programme from the United States, which targets young disadvantaged children. It found significant positive effects of high quality child care for child development and parental well being, as is also pointed out in the child care summary document.

Amendment No. 272 is broadly similar to the aims and objectives of amendment No. 11 in that it would bring into the assessment of sufficiency not just an assessment of the supply of child care in the area but would also make that assessment in the context of the demand. The amendment has the support of 4Children, the Day Care Trust, the National Childminding Association and the Preschool Learning Alliance. Indeed, they may even have helped draft it. They want to see the amendments assessing parents’ demands for child care, as well as the supply of child care in the locality. The brief says that ensuring that local child care assessments consider both supply and demand is crucial to supporting the local authority effectively to plan and manage the local child care market and shape local provision to parents’ needs.

The organisations point to clause 12(5) under which the local authority must proactively reach out to families who do not traditionally use child care services. That is about creating demand to meet parents’ needs, as well as existing demand. They therefore say that they believe that making specific reference to both supply and demand here in clause 11 will assist local authorities in fulfilling their strategic role.

However, I shall leave the detail to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I shall leave also amendment No. 271, which again is a Liberal Democrat amendment. It is also supported by those four organisations. The amendment introduces the issue of quality to the assessment of sufficiency. That makes sense. It is no good simply carrying out an assessment of the raw number of child care places without taking into account the quality of those child care places.

As the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education study found, high levels of group care of poor quality below the age of three can have a small negative effect on behaviour for some children. That is why those four organisations that I have mentioned support the amendment. They say that it is vital that in increasing capacity in the sector local authorities focus on developing high quality provision in well resourced and well led settings.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could help me to understand the definition of quality. As I understand it, in order to be registered, all provision has to meet standards set by Ofsted, which, I imagine, sets standards of quality below which it will not register the provision. In which way does his definition of quality differ from that which would be assessed by Ofsted?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The definition that the experts in the field want is given. They want the provision to be well resourced and well led by well trained, properly supported and fairly paid staff. There are other definitions of Ofsted’s criteria, grades 1, 2, 3 or 4. Is it acceptable for the provision to be grade 4 after an Ofsted inspection?

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a private provider could reach grade 4 in an Ofsted assessment, he would be looking to the local authority to make an assessment and decide that that grade was not an acceptable quality of child care?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

When we assess sufficiency, it is not enough to say, “There are 50 child care places within 100 yards of point x,” if they are of such poor quality that when Ofsted inspects, its judgment is that the provision is unsatisfactory. It should not be regarded as sufficient.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Ofsted is surely not defining the provision as unsatisfactory, because if Ofsted did, it would not register the provision.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The registration will, presumably, take place at the beginning, before any inspections take place. Only in the course of events and time, when Ofsted examines what is happening and the quality of the child care, will it be able to come up with a judgment.

If the local authority assesses sufficiency in an area, and it finds that a child care provider does not provide what the local authority, assisted by the judgment of Ofsted, regard to be sufficient quality, the provision should not be regarded as part of the sufficiency that the local authority has a duty to assess. It makes common sense.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 11 - Duty to assess childcare provision

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 86, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—

‘(1A)An assessment under subsection (1) must include the childcare needs of children whose parents are not working.’.

No. 272, in page 6, line 13, after ‘assessments”’, insert

‘which must include an assessment of—

(a)the supply of childcare provision available locally, and

(b)the childcare requirements of parents living in the area’.

No. 271, in page 6, line 23, after ‘criteria’, insert

‘which must include an assessment of the quality of the childcare provision available locally’.

No. 304, in clause 26, page 12, line 40, at end insert—

‘(2A)Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision requiring a local authority to review an assessment following the provision of relevant evidence, not previously considered, by parents.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship. As you will recall, you were involved with my board for the approved list of parliamentary candidates, and my fear is that all your worst fears are coming true.

I think that this morning I was bringing my remarks to a close by referring to the briefing from the four child care organisations, the National Childminding Association, the Preschool Learning Alliance, 4Children and the Daycare Trust, which believe that making specific reference to both supply and demand in clause 11 will assist local authorities in fulfilling their strategic leadership role. Indeed, the guidance that the Minister has kindly sent us refers at great length to both the supply and the demand sides. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the comments that I made just before lunch, if she can remember them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

In some ways it is fortunate that we might not remember all the words of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), because that allows me to be repetitive without having to apologise. There are similarities, as we said this morning, between the Conservatives’ amendments and amendment No. 272, which I wish to address. We have exactly the same objectives and those are echoed by some of the major organisations.

The purpose of amendment No. 272 is fairly clear: it is to ensure that the regular child care assessments that the new duty would oblige local authorities to carry out would include an assessment of parents’ demand for child care, both met and unmet, as well as of local child care provision. We have already heard that it is important to consider both supply and demand. I should like to add to this morning’s comments by saying that I welcome the proposals under clause 12 on the children’s information service and the idea that a local authority has to be proactive, possibly by engaging in outreach work to identify additional demand. There is a case for demand to be mentioned in the Bill.

Amendment No. 271, which was also covered towards the end of this morning’s debate, seeks to include quality in the definition of sufficiency—that is to say that the criteria should include an assessment of the quality of child care provision available. We debated the matter at great length under clause 6 and I remain unconvinced that it should not be the local authority’s duty to have anything to do with quality. We are aware that Ofsted will be involved, and although it can—and might well—be called in to make an inspection, inspections will generally take place once every three years.

It does not seem to me unreasonable to include quality as a criterion. It is difficult to define, but I am minded to say to the Minister that I am sure that precise definitions could be included in guidance. It is not our job, we are told, to write the guidance. We will read it in the Library in due course, when we notice that it has arrived. I cannot accept the argument that the fact that there is no definition of quality in the Bill is a reason for not accepting the amendment. Quality is an established concept in child care and early years provision, and part 3 of the Bill does take on the issue of quality in an important manner. Everyone is agreed that we are not talking just about the quantity of child care. Quality is of great importance and will be the real determinant of the future development of children who have benefited from child care.

When a local authority is in a commissioning role and it has the job of mapping out the child care that is available locally, it is all-important to include quality in the mapping. As a minimum, that could mean a reference to the latest Ofsted inspections, but I hope that it would go further. As I have explained several times before, I am keen on self-evaluation quality assurance, and the mapping could make reference to that, indicating which providers had, for example, achieved various awards in that sphere. The approach could be quite simple. The definition of quality would need to be worked up between local authorities and the main providers. I ask the Minister seriously to consider including quality in this part of the Bill, because the issue returns again and again; the use of the term “sufficiency” has a clear quantitative element. Yet in the sphere that we are considering, of all spheres, quality is all-important.

I should like my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to speak to amendment No. 304, which relates specifically to Wales.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate this morning. It is a pleasure to speak to amendment No. 304, which relates to part 2 of the Bill on child care provision in Wales. It would give an element of parent power to the parents of children in local authorities in Wales. After an assessment of the sufficiency or appropriateness of the amount of child care in an area, things would change, almost from the day of the assessment. The amendment would bring changes in local circumstances to the attention of the local authority; a request could be made to reassess whether child care was sufficient.

The issue was brought to my attention recently when parents in a community were unable to get access to child care because a bus service had been taken away. As a result, all the parents who did not have a car or access to a car could not get to the facility that had been available. A question arises from that, given the local authority duty under the Bill to provide an assessment. There would be a huge difference in the facilities available to those families. The amendment would therefore enable parents to tell the local authority that there had been a material change in their circumstances and ask it, before the next full assessment in two or three years or whatever the Assembly might require, to take matters in hand and carry out an assessment immediately.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The issues that we are now debating are considered in more detail in the paper that I made available to the Committee yesterday evening about local authority assessments of the sufficiency of child care. It might be helpful if the Committee were to realise that clause 11 replaces and expands current provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which contains a duty requiring local authorities to review annually the sufficiency of their child care, but which does not require them to take any action in the light of what they find.

I agree absolutely that the needs assessment must relate to the child care that parents require, but some of the amendments would have unintended and unhelpful side effects.

Amendment No. 11 wishes to tie clause 11 to the duties under clause 6. Although clause 11 relates to clause 6, it relates also to clause 7, which provides the individual child with the entitlement to early years provision for children of a prescribed age. I should not want to downplay that important link with clause 7.

Amendment No. 86 would require the needs assessment in clause 11 to include the child care needs of non-working parents. That is unnecessary. If hon. Members have had a chance to consider the document I circulated yesterday evening, they will have seen that the assessment must take into account the needs of all parents. It must be a comprehensive assessment.

The second page of that document proposes that the regulations would require an undertaking assessment. That includes a range of matters: the current level of each type of care available; the needs of lower income families; the requirements of all parents of children up to 14, or 16, if the child is disabled; the views of parents, children, carers, providers and the community; parents’ and carers’ demand for child care to enable them to work if they choose to; issues relating to localised under-supply, or inappropriate patterns and types of child care; and even the needs of parents who live outside the local authority area, but use providers in it, possibly because they work there or want to work there.

The regulations in line with what I have just said will lay out clearly which groups the local authority should consult to ensure that it meets the needs of parents, families and employers. Local authorities will need to understand also what child care the private and voluntary sector can provide to ensure a diverse market to give parents a real choice.

Turning to amendment No. 272, I agree that the issues are important for inclusion in the assessment process, but such factors would be better and more fully addressed through regulations. It is inconceivable that a meaningful assessment could take place without taking those issues into account, but it is not helpful to include them in the Bill.

As the document lays out in some detail, we expect local authorities to take account of a range of factors when deciding whether provision is sufficient. They include, on the supply side, the number of places, their hours of opening, the type of provision, the price charged and the accessibility of provision; and on the demand side, the number of places required and the hours at which places are required—both for parents who reside in the local authority, and for other parents who travel into that area for child care. We cannot and should not attempt to include all those issues in the Bill, and I should not want any list to be interpreted as a constraint on what could be included.

Amendment No. 271 would require local authorities to assess the quality of child care provision, as part of their overall assessment of the child care market. I have already stressed how much of the Bill is about quality. There is a fundamental misunderstanding or misconception about the arrangements for ensuring and assessing quality. The arrangements are enshrined in national standards that are regulated by Ofsted, the inspecting body. Local authorities do not want another layer of inspection, and nor do providers, particularly those in the voluntary and private sector. They should not thank us for imposing another layer on them.

By way of reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) has tried to make clear, the process of registration will ensure that only those providers who meet the quality standards for registration will succeed in being registered. The provider will demonstrate the evidence that it is meeting the quality standards. Ofsted will make an initial visit at the point of registration with an unannounced follow-up visit within seven months to ensure that the standards have been implemented. We have to get it right in our minds. Ofsted is the national body to ensure national standards and we cannot expect local authorities or providers to want another layer of quality inspection to intervene as a result of the process. We have to leave that to Ofsted.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I thought the point of the amendment was not to set up a new inspection regime for child care quality assessment but to point the assessment process towards quality. It is perfectly possible for the local authority to use the Ofsted reports in assessing the quality of the provision. To rely only on the inspection from when the child care provision is first established may not be enough because in two, three, four or five years’ time the quality may have deteriorated. When the authority is making a periodic assessment every three years, it should take into account the current quality and not just the quality of the provision when it was established several years before.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

This is not an assessment of quality. Clause 11 relates to the assessment of sufficiency. As we debated in clause 6, the extent to which local authorities are required to fulfil their duty under sufficiency includes, crucially, sufficient child care for parents who can claim working tax credit. To claim working tax credit, child care has to be registered. We are talking predominately about registered child care, and for registration purposes the Ofsted process is by definition the guarantee of quality. I accept that in ongoing work with local providers through the provision of training—both by local authorities and visiting providers—local authorities will act if they have concerns about quality.

In general, Ofsted is the national body established to ensure that quality standards are reached. We cannot establish such an assessment because it would involve another layer of apparatus and we cannot expect local authorities to do that. We would have to define what we meant, whereas the Bill defines quality standards for the early years foundation stage which Ofsted will translate into the indicators for which it will look. Assessing child care is a complicated job and it is not something that can be simply done in a short space of time. That is why we have a well established and detailed apparatus under Ofsted to perform that function for us. As appealing as it might sound, simply saying that local authorities have to be concerned about quality in the assessment would mean in practice that they would replicate what Ofsted already does.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I want to ask a simple question, which is not meant to be particularly deep or profound. The local authority has a duty to provide sufficiency, which is only a quantitative measure. Does the definition of sufficiency include settings with an Ofsted report which, although poor, is not enough to close them down?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Clearly, in those circumstances, Ofsted, with its risk-based approach to assessment, will consider making further, unannounced visits to any child care provider about whom it has concerns or who is only just above the approval threshold. I am sure that it will talk to the local authorities in those circumstances and they will work with the providers to see whether, through training and other support, they can raise the standard of their provision. Ultimately—this is important, because it assures parents of the consistency of decision making—it will be Ofsted that decides whether that child care meets the right standard. It will not be the case that no one looks at a provider who is causing concern: Ofsted will go in successively and will talk to the local authority, which will work with the provider to try to raise standards. It is a process in which people will be talking and working together. Only if Ofsted ultimately decides that the provider is not coming up to standard will the registration be removed.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities would be put in a difficult position if they were given the additional duty? If there was a provider with places whom Ofsted had registered as being of sufficient quality and the local authority decided, on some other basis, that it did not meet their quality standards, what would the local authority’s position be if the provider decided to appeal against its decision?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

My hon. Friend graphically starts to take us into the tortuous processes, decision making and confusion that would arise if there were two standards of quality—one operated by Ofsted and one by the local authority. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that he was perfectly happy with that possibility, but I do not know how parents would begin to make sense of it, let alone how local authorities and the providers would understand such a convoluted and two-tier system.

We established Ofsted because we wanted to ensure that there was a nationally endorsed standard that made sense to parents and which parents knew about. Indeed, the Ofsted brand has been successful in being recognised by parents, who have a great deal of confidence in its process and the results of its decision making. That is the validated way that we have established to assure quality standards, and it is one that parents understand. We should not confuse the situation by bringing in something else that is undefined and not thought through, which would totally complicate the situation for parents and providers.

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

What the Minister is saying is interesting. She is clarifying matters very well, but Ofsted is an inspection organisation. Many schools languish in special measures for more than a year, and Ofsted’s inspection and repeated inspections, and guidance even, are sometimes not enough to improve standards. The same undoubtedly applies in early child care settings. Therefore, the Minister is sub-contracting quality assurance to Ofsted, which is really an inspection regime.

It is odd that, under the Minister’s regime, she is willing to allow primary schools to drive out perfectly valid and high-quality child care—primary schools are exempted from the caveat in the Bill—but is not prepared to drive out, through the local authorities providing new child care provision, child care settings that are of very poor quality, as determined by Ofsted.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I cannot say it any more gently than that. He is returning to a point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary dealt with. No one on the Labour Benches has ever said that we are happy for primary schools to drive out perfectly good providers. They are his words and no one else’s, as far as I can recall.

Local authorities have a role in relation to ongoing improvement, if that is what the hon. Gentleman means by quality assurance—he introduced the issue of schools, but this point relates to schools and child care providers. Many have their own quality assurance standards, and they work with providers to help them meet those standards. That is different from the process of regulation and inspection that we think should be the benchmark when the local authority goes through the comprehensive assessment, considering what parents need for the supply of child care, so that it can identify the gaps and work to fill them. The point at which it seeks to facilitate the market to provide more child care is not the ongoing improvement of practice. At that point, it wants to know whether the providers meet Ofsted standards, which is what they will have to do.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am in total agreement and just want to clarify matters. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The Minister has clarified that the local authority has a role to play in the quality agenda and in working with Ofsted. That is what I have tried to say all along: the Bill should recognise that the local authority has a role to play.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am glad that if, through my clarification, we have reached greater common understanding. However, it is not relevant to include that reference in this part of the Bill. We are talking about the assessment process and, on the basis of the assessment process, the identification of gaps that the local authority, with private and voluntary independent providers, can fill to obtain more child care in the authority’s area. At that point, it must obtain the child care that meets the registration standards.

From that point onwards, most authorities have a quality improvement scheme, and they work with providers to ensure that they can access local authority training. That is continuing, as the hon. Lady knows, and it will continue after the Bill is enacted. At the point of the assessment, we cannot helpfully muddy the waters by using the quality assurance process. We need a common standard that everybody understands, and that is the Ofsted registration process.

On amendment No. 304, I must return to my earlier point, which we will continue to make about the Welsh clauses. Having established the principle that assessments must be kept under review, it is right to leave the detail to be set out in regulations by the National Assembly for Wales. Under the system in England or Wales, it will be possible for parents to say to the local authority, “Our needs have changed. We want you to look at them again.” I hope that with that assurance, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will feel no need to press his amendment to the vote.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In view of the helpful policy document that she circulated last night, and the wide debate in which we have aired our concerns fully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 6, line 13, at end insert

‘, which must be published and a copy sent to the Children’s Commissioner’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 194, in page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a)consult parents and prospective parents in their area,

(b)consult early years providers in their area, including those in private and voluntary sectors,

(c)consult other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area, and

(d)consult young children’.

No. 302, in clause 26, page 12, line 38, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a)consult parents and prospective parents in their area,

(b)consult early years providers in their area, including those in the private and voluntary sectors,

(c)consult other persons engaged in the activities which may improve the wellbeing of young children in their area,

(d)consult young children and,

(e)consult and pay particular attention to the advice of the Children’s Commissioner Wales.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is a straightforward amendment, which has been grouped with two amendments in the names of Liberal Democrat Members.

In producing the assessment of the sufficiency of child care provision, the clause ensures that the local authority fully publishes its findings, so that they are visible to the public and to other child care providers, whether private, voluntary, independent or other, so that everybody can see the basis on which the local authority has reached its conclusions and the evidence that it has used, and parents can have full access to those findings to inform their decisions. The amendment would add the provision that a copy of the assessment should be sent to the children’s commissioner.

Again, this is a probing amendment. I am mindful that, in debating the Children Act 2004, which established the children’s commissioner, we placed many requirements on him to account for his work to the Secretary of State, I hope to Parliament and to many others. It would be useful to ensure that, in providing an account of the work that he has been doing, the children’s commissioner is fully informed and has an overview of the sufficiency of the child care provision established in the Bill. Part of his remit is to ensure that the welfare of children of all ages and descriptions is attended to by a range of agencies—local authorities, voluntary organisations and others.

Therefore, amendment No. 106 is a probing amendment to ensure that the findings are fully published and that the children’s commissioner is part of the process of information being passed on, so that he is better informed when making the assessments that he is obliged to make under the 2004 Act.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Amendments Nos. 194 and 302 place in the Bill the people or bodies of whom inquiries should be made. Again, we include among those people young children. Investors in Children, the quality kitemark created by the DFES, says that, in assessing quality of provision and education, the views of children and young people should be taken into consideration.

I know that we have emphasised this issue before, but we return to it because it is so important. As I understand it, the children’s commissioners in Wales and England place a great deal of emphasis on the value of talking to children and getting their views on issues that affect them and in which they are involved. It would improve the Bill if the profile of children and young people in determining their own services could be enhanced, particularly in Wales, where the commissioner’s role is slightly different from that of his counterpart in England.

I believe that the commissioners should be involved in assessments. In Wales the children’s commissioner can take on complaints from individuals, whether they are parents, children or young adults. By working through those complaints and resolving them, his own work can be better informed. Indeed, in Wales, some of the work that he has done has directly followed on from comments and complaints by young people. For those reasons we believe that which people should be consulted on such matters should be set out in both the English part and the Welsh part of the Bill, and their views should be taken into consideration.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

On amendment No. 106, I made it clear this morning when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was necessarily detained in another part of the House that we would require local authorities to publish their assessments. However, it is better to set out the requirements of how and when they do so in regulations because we can take into account different ways in which the document might be published or how it might be distributed. There is no difference between us in principle on that.

The children’s commissioner will be able to access information, but requiring every local authority to send him a copy of their child care assessment is rather burdensome, not least for the commissioner, who would have reams of paper arriving on his desk. The commissioner will want to focus on particular issues, largely those brought to him by children. Although it will be possible for him to take up an issue relating to an area’s assessment, we should not require authorities routinely to send them to him or require him to receive them.

On amendments Nos. 194 and 302, I have already made it clear in the note that we have circulated that there will be a wide specification of the groups that local authorities have to consult as part of the process, so I hope that hon. Members are assured that they are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As I said, my amendment is a probing one. I am sure that the children’s commissioner will be very disappointed not to be festooned with all this extra paperwork.

However, my serious point is that we do not want the children’s commissioner to stick his nose into the successes or shortcomings of a particular authority. That is not his remit and he will have an enormous job of work to do with limited resources compared with those of his counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom, but that is another debate. We want the children’s commissioner to have an overview of how certain authorities are achieving the assessment, so that someone is monitoring that process independently of the Secretary of State—this is one of the joys of being children’s commissioner, someone who jealously guards his independence. That would enable him to determine which authorities are doing it effectively and well and which appear not to be doing it quite so well. He would then be able to report to the Secretary of State and others on the process as he sees it from an independent standpoint.

As I said, this is a probing amendment; the point has been made and the Minister has responded. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 12 - Duty to provide information, advice and assistance

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 6, line 40, after ‘provision’, insert

‘, affordability, sustainability and quality’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 177, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—

‘(aa)examples of the potential implications for young children of unregulated childcare;

(ab)parenting classes available in the area of the local authority;’.

No. 191, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—

‘(d)any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to parents of disabled children in their area;

(e)any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to disabled children or young persons in their area.’.

No. 197, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—

‘(d)parental support for their children’s learning.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, these are probing amendments. Amendment No. 108 reflects an earlier discussion, so I shall not go into great detail about it.

Clause 12 relates to the duty of the local authority to provide information, advice and assistance on types of child care provision locally. I can predict what the Minister will tell us from echoes of previous debates. It is important that rather than just list what is available in the area, such as what nursery providers there are and what their capacity is, there is some qualitative assessment. Affordability is also a key factor. Certain nurseries will find that they are less popular with certain providers if they are not as affordable, whatever that is defined as in certain areas.

It is also useful to have some cognisance of their sustainability—by which I mean, how long have the child care providers been in place? Have they just sprung up? If so, one would want to ask rather more penetrating questions about their long-term viability and the viability of their business plans. The last thing that parents want is to get their children settled with one child care provider only to find that that provider has gone out of business and they have to move their children, which is damaging for all involved.

We are just trying to include a marker in the Bill. It is not clear how the information will be provided, but we presume that that will be taken up in regulations, hopefully sooner rather than later. Again we hope that it will be as extensive as possible, particularly in the light of the most disadvantaged families, who need to have things teased out that much more thoroughly.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

How could a local authority provide information to a parent on how long a particular private provider will last? I do not know on what basis it would be able to do that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is not what I am asking for. That would be entirely theoretical and nobody is requiring that. However, one can make some reasonable assessments from looking at the track record and history of a nursery. For example, if a nursery is well established, is well used by its immediate area, is popular and has a history of being oversubscribed, those are good signs. If it has just sprung up and is being run by people who are newly qualified, it is worth knowing that information. That is the sort of information that I would wish to know as a parent when assessing a school for my child. I would want to know how long certain teachers had been there, their qualifications and what the ethos of the school was. It is not unreasonable to want that sort of information.

I am certainly not asking the local authority to make business assessments of the financial viability of nurseries, although I am concerned about that. We had a debate earlier about the longer-term sustainability from a financial point of view, particularly if the market becomes too overcrowded and if there is not a level playing field for existing private and voluntary independent providers that have to compete against new, publicly-funded providers where the capital up-front costs have been provided elsewhere and therefore the borrowing requirements are less onerous early on.

The requirements are reasonable and would provide more information than the Bill currently obliges the local authority to provide, although I have to say that subsection (2)(b) seems to be a rather wide-ranging requirement to provide parents with information about

“any other services or facilities, or any publications, which may be of benefit to parents or prospective parents in their area”.

People could argue long and hard about what that involves. It is crucial that some guidance is given to authorities about how their responsibilities could feasibly be discharged, otherwise parents will ask for all sorts of learned works on the operation of certain child care providers.

The second Conservative amendment in the group is amendment No. 191, which again harks back to an earlier argument. The amendment has been suggested by Mencap. It would include in the Bill reference to disabled children and services that are suitable for them. Obviously, all nurseries will have to comply with the specifications in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the more recent legislation. Nurseries that are housed in not-built-for-purpose older buildings will have gone through a greater number of hoops to adapt those premises so that they are suitable for disabled children. Newly built nurseries are obviously expected to be built with all those provisions in place.

However, we need to go beyond the fabric of the building to include information about the qualifications of the staff for dealing with heavily disabled children—both with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Everyone acknowledges that the education and the early years provision for disabled children is inevitably that much more costly and complex.

Some parents may be looking to entrust their disabled children to such care, perhaps on a part-time basis rather than regularly. We discussed the fact that the parents of disabled children are not automatically consulted about the sort of provision that is being established. It is incumbent on local authorities to go that extra mile to ensure a full account of what is available for children with disabilities. It is essential. It can do nothing but help to include it in the Bill.

The amendment would not impose an enormous or onerous requirement on local authorities, but it would be enormously helpful to have that reference. The parents of children with disabilities would have a reference point should a local authority appear, for whatever reason, to provide only the most basic of information, and certainly information below the threshold that parents would need to make an informed choice about what child care provision they should make for children with particular disabilities.

Amendment No. 191 is supported by Mencap. It would mean that disabled children were explicitly mentioned.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I start by pledging the Liberal Democrats wholehearted support for amendment No. 191. In the light of our earlier discussions on the importance and the challenges of providing child care for children with severe disabilities, it is vital.

On amendments Nos. 177 and 197, I have to confess that the latter, which proposes new paragraph (aa), does not express exactly what I intended. I shall explain my purpose and I hope that the Minister will show some tolerance, because I have a genuine crusade—[Interruption.] I thought that if I made a speech on this amendment, I could be much briefer when speaking about other parts of the Bill.

On Second Reading, I outlined a constituency case in which a child could have suffered serious damage. It resulted from a crash that caused concussion. As a result of that incident, I have attempted to amend various parts of the Bill, but I have not asked for extra regulation; that is not the answer in what is already a heavily regulated area.

I have not got the wording of the amendment quite right, but my intentions are honourable. I promise not to run through that case again, but I shall simply refer to it as we progress through the Bill. Baroness Ashton of Upholland wrote to me several years ago about my concerns. She stated:

“As your constituent indicates in her letter, an OFSTED inspector visited the creche in question and found that it was operating illegally. I understand that the inspector raised a number of concerns with them and tried to persuade the manager of the centre to register ... with OFSTED. However, the manager opted to reduce the creche opening hours instead.”

The letter said that while the crèche remained outside the scope of Ofsted’s regulation scheme, no one could intervene. It continued:

“But it might be possible to bring pressure to bear locally on the manager concerned to improve the quality of this provision and extend the hours of operation so that it better serves parents’ needs and can be registered and inspected by OFSTED.”

If a crèche is unregulated, parents should know that, even if it is operating for less than two hours. My intention in paragraph (aa) is that we provide examples of unregulated child care and an explanation as to their implications, so that a parent leaving a child at an unregulated crèche would be aware of the situation and would know what questions to ask. The matter is dear to my heart because we should try to raise awareness about unregulated settings that parents might assume are regulated.

Paragraph (ab) touches on an equally important issue. I think we all want to make parenting classes mainstream, rather than their being seen as a punishment via a parenting order, or existing in some other circumstances in which parents feel stigmatised. An audit of parenting classes should be available, and a full range of services should be offered, from videos to actual classes. That would be a helpful element of the information provided by the children’s information services.

I recognise that the Minister might say that that would be an additional burden. On the other hand, many information services will probably have partial information on such matters anyway, and it is of the utmost importance. Over and over again, when we reflect on the ills of our society, we say that it comes back to parenting. We should provide the information about where help is available—I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter—and encourage people to see it as a strength to seek help when they are having the sort of difficulties with parenting that I am sure all of us parents have had from time to time.

Amendment No. 197 also concerns the provision of information about how parents can support their learning. By that, I do not mean reading cramming books from a major retailer on how to reach particular development goals, but seeking the good, practical advice that is available through a lot of organisations. It would be useful to signpost to people where they can get such information.

I accept that we could go on and on listing what the children’s information service should do, and that might be the Minister’s answer, but I have highlighted three important areas that merit being called to the attention of parents. At the same time, I entirely support amendment No. 191.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Clause 12 places a duty on local authorities to provide information on child care provision, services, facilities and publications to benefit parents and children in their area, and to provide advice and assistance to parents and prospective parents who are looking for child care. It is clear that we all want to ensure that parents can take advantage of a wide range of services to help them in their parenting role. The duties in clause 12 are designed to ensure that we can help local authorities to provide the information that parents need on a whole range of services that are available to them, and additional advice and assistance will be provided for parents who are looking for child care.

Amendment No. 108 would place in the Bill a requirement for local authorities to provide information on affordability, sustainability and quality of child care. I accept that cost is one of the most important considerations for parents when they are looking for child care, but my difficulty is that affordability is a relative concept. What is affordable for you, Mr. Benton, might not be affordable for the next person in line. It is difficult, and not particularly sensible, to require local authorities to make information available about affordability, which is a relative term. It would be different for each person using the information and for each set of circumstances.

It would be useful for parents to receive information about the child care costs in particular settings in their area, backed up, perhaps, by advice on how to get help with paying them. That is our idea of the sort of advice that would be useful to parents. We do not want to place an obligation on local authorities to spend a lot of time and effort making variations and complicating the information to make it suitable for all the different types of people who might want to take advantage of it. We intend to use our regulation-making powers to deal with the approach to things, such as affordability, that I have described. Relevant topics might include how to get access to child care tax credit and the care to learn scheme for teenage parents. The regulations and statutory guidance will make that clear.

As for information about quality, we have debated quality and Ofsted, and whether local authorities should attempt to second-guess Ofsted or do the same job in a slightly different way. However, we intend to ensure, through regulations, that information services are required to direct parents to the reports that Ofsted produces to help them to make an informed choice, taking issues of quality into account. It is not particularly sensible to make the local authority go through a process of second-guessing or duplicating Ofsted’s work, which might be the effect of the amendment.

Sustainability is also a key issue for local authorities in the planning of child care and for parents when they decide what provision, in what setting, they want for their children. However, providing information on sustainability is not quite as easy as the amendment makes it sound. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made that point when she accused the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of future-gazing or attempting to make local authorities future-gaze. The amendment would require judgments to be made about circumstances in the future. The hon. Gentleman clearly said that he did not really mean that, but the wording could be taken in that way. There would therefore be a risk that local authorities would feel they had to make an assessment that could turn out to be misleading, and we would have created a difficult and burdensome duty for authorities. That is not the idea.

In speaking to amendment No. 177, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole threw herself on the mercy of the Committee and said that she had worded it wrongly, disarming me of all the barbs that I had put in my speech to tell her that. In an attempt to be gracious, therefore, which is not always easy for me, I shall systematically remove those barbs. Her efforts to defend herself have worked.

I understand the point that the hon. Lady made, particularly with respect to the specific case that she raised, but she will understand, because the wording is wrong, that it would not be helpful for us to include in information a lurid tale of what might go wrong in an unregistered setting. We certainly need to create a balance that includes ensuring that parents receive comprehensive information about options, to enable them to choose the child care that suits them. They need to be able to judge whether a registered or unregistered setting is suitable for them and their child at the time, in their circumstances, instead of being pushed in one direction or the other by tales of what might go wrong. We can all think of things that could go wrong in other, registered, settings, and things that have gone wrong in very highly regulated settings. I do not, therefore, think that that approach would be helpful.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

To be absolutely clear, I think that parents need to know when settings are unregulated. That is really what I am trying to say, and I do not know how they are to have any idea of the difference between a crèche that operates for one hour and 59 minutes and one that operates for two hours and one minute.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I might agree with the hon. Lady that that is rather a good idea, and I am certain that without an amendment, whether well-worded or not, that is what we intend local authorities to do when they provide information about what is available in their area. I am also certain that they will want to ensure that they do that. Obviously, it is then up to parents themselves to decide what is suitable on the basis of the objective information that they receive.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of parenting classes. Of course we want to equip parents to support their children, engage in their learning and promote positive outcomes, but there are many ways besides parenting classes to do that. It would not be sensible to single out in the Bill the provision of information on parenting classes. It is our aim to ensure that families are able to access information on the whole range of parenting support, which includes parenting classes, but to list in the Bill all the services that could benefit parents—the hon. Lady guessed that I would say this—would be over-prescriptive. I will not say that that would be typical of the Liberal Democrats, which I might have been tempted to say had she not been so graceful when she introduced her amendment.

We shall ensure that local authorities are required to tell parents about parenting classes and all the other programmes that may be available locally by including a requirement in the regulations and guidance that they do so.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind amendment No. 191, as does the hon. Lady, who made clear her party’s support for it. I fully accept that parents of disabled children have not always been well served in the provision of child care. The market has not previously provided sufficient suitable places, which may be characterised as market failure. Clause 6 addresses that, which is why it specifies in particular the provision for disabled children. However, the general provision of information is not aimed at addressing market failure in the provision for any one specific group. This clause is about local authorities providing information to parents about what is available. Making some change to the details in clause 12 will not address the market failure as such and, as we want to ensure that information is provided to all parents and all disadvantaged groups, we do not think that a reference to a particular group is sensible. However, as I said, the regulations will prescribe the content of the information. They will clearly specify that information should be provided about the services available to disabled children and their parents.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have been listening to the Under-Secretary. She just said that it would not be sensible to single out a particular group of children, but, by her own admission, she did precisely that in clause 6(2)(a)(ii) by referring to

“the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children”.

Only disabled children are singled out. Why would it detract from the clause to include a requirement that information on such provision is provided?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I was attempting, obviously unsuccessfully, to explain that. The duty under clause 12 is to provide information about existing provision. We know that there has been a substantial market failure in respect of the provision for disabled children. Clause 6 is about improving that provision, which is why disabled children are specifically mentioned in it. Clause 12 is about providing information on what is there, not about addressing market failure and the lack of suitable child care provision to meet the needs of parents of disabled children.

I said that there will be specific reference to disabled children in the regulations. I shall do my best to ensure that they pay particular attention to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the specific needs of the parents of disabled children, and that they tackle the extra obstacles that those parents often face in finding suitable provision for their children. I believe that that will deal with concern that he raised.I hope that in the light of those explanations, hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair.]

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have had a useful discussion. I take on board the Under-Secretary’s point in response to amendment No. 108, but I think affordability need not be a purely relative term. It should include information about price and relative costs in parts of an authority, or in an area or region. I take on board her comments about it including information on tax credits and the availability of help.

I do not agree with the Under-Secretary’s points on sustainability. She accused the hon. Member for Stockport of accusing me of future-gazing, which is an interesting phrase. I am more concerned, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Stockport, that one clarification under sustainability would be how the provision is funded. Is it purely a private commercial enterprise? Has it been made possible through public funding from neighbourhood nurseries or various Sure Start-type programmes? Is it funded on a voluntary basis? Information about the nature of its funding streams and financial structures would be perfectly sensible and practical and would constitute, as far as I am concerned, a good degree of information with which to judge sustainability, which is a subjective phrase by any measure. However, I will not push that point.

I am not convinced by what the Under-Secretary said on amendment No. 191. We often have debates about why we should not single out a group of people. They are singled out; we would all agree that people with disabilities should be singled out for particular reasons. I am not convinced by her argument that because the matter is covered in clause 6, which deals with market deficiencies, it should not be included in clause 12. The Bill does not require local authorities to publish full information about the availability of disability-friendly and disability-specialist child care places. However, I will not detain the Committee by forcing the amendment to a vote. I am grateful that the Minister has pledged to reinforce that matter in the regulations. Of course, it goes back to the problem that we have had all along, which is that without sight of the regulations it is difficult for us to judge whether the Minister will provide the sort of assurances in practice that she says she will. It is useful that we have reinforced the importance of those points in this short debate, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 13 - Duty to provide information, advice and training to childcare providers

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in page 7, line 30, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 132, 133, 138 to 144, 146 and 148.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As hon. Members will have seen, these are all drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the Bill. Each changes the word “register” to the phrase “be registered” to reflect the fact that providers will be registered by Ofsted and will not register themselves. That will be consistent with existing provisions.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 13, page 7, line 42, at end insert—

‘(1A)An English local authority may, in addition to securing the provision of information, advice and training which they are required to secure under subsection (1), provide other information, advice and training to any persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 135.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The amendments make necessary adjustments to the clause, which is about the duty to provide information, advice and training to providers. One of the amendments enables local authorities to charge for providing those services. The amendments simply improve the capacity of local authorities and give them flexibility to shape and support child care through the provision of information, advice and training to providers, and update an existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 to reflect the reforms of inspection and regulation contained in the Bill.

The information, advice and training that local authorities will have to provide will be specified in regulations and guidance. Clause 13 specifies that it must be provided to: child care providers, who must register under part 3; those who intend to become providers; and employees of providers. Amendment No. 134 allows authorities to provide information, advice and training other than the minimum listed in the regulation. Amendment No. 135 enables local authorities to make reasonable charges for the provision of that information, advice and training.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It makes sense for local authorities to be able to charge child care providers for any training that they receive, but the charges should, of course, be reasonable, and child care providers should be able to go elsewhere for that training should they wish to do so. I am concerned about local authorities charging for information and advice. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will not charge child care providers for the provision of information if that amounts solely to them carrying out their statutory duties?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the charges have to be reasonable and proportionate to the service being offered. We will consult local authorities and providers on this matter, and I will take those representations when they come forward, but I do not want to be constrained at this point. It is important that local authorities can reasonably charge for services that they provide, which the clause would not allow them to do as it is currently drafted.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4)An English local authority must ensure all persons providing childcare in their area who are registered under Part 3 are provided with free access to, or funding in order to undertake, Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training, within one year of their registration.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 217, in clause 43, page 21, line 37, at end insert—

‘(i)the requirement of all early years providers (childminders and other providers) in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

Amendment No. 218, in clause 53, page 27, line 4, at end insert—

‘(f)the requirement of all later years childminders in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

Amendment No. 219, in clause 54, page 27, line 29, at end insert—

‘(f)the requirement of all later years providers in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

New clause 10—Requirement to undertake Safeguarding training—

‘A person applying to register as an early years or later years childminder is required to complete an accredited Local Safeguarding Children Board child protection training course before registration.’.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I do not plan to comment on new clause 10 because it is not quite as I want it. I will talk about that later.

Amendments Nos. 216 to 219 make the same point about different clauses. Amendment No. 216 may seem slightly contrary to what we have just agreed. Amendment No. 217 emphasises the requirements on early years providers, amendment No. 218 emphasises the requirements on all later years child minders, and amendment No. 219 emphasises the requirements on all later years providers in England. Each amendment requires the groups of providers to have undertaken child protection training approved by the local safeguarding children board within a year of registration.

The amendments are supported by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, the Daycare Trust and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Importantly, the providers themselves have suggested the amendments. None of us can underestimate the importance of proper training in child protection, and there may be a greater public good in the local authority paying for such a course. Indeed, I sometimes believe there to be a moral duty for the local authority to do so, particularly if there is a requirement for the training to be undertaken.

A legal requirement for child protection training is important because child care workers’ knowledge of child protection procedures, such as what they should be looking out for and what the signals are, will vary considerably. Early preventive work always includes identifying potential abuse, which is all important. Proper training is required, rather than an over-reaction to possible symptoms. It might simply be a matter of watching and observing for a while, or of knowing whom to go to in a particular setting should there be any particular concerns.

The Minister should give serious consideration to training because most of us put child protection high up the agenda, and we know that child abuse can start at a very early age.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I very much support the intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned about it amending the Bill without proper consultation and assessment of the effect that it could have on the supply of child minders.

There is great difficulty, particularly in my constituency, in increasing the supply of child minders in disadvantaged areas, which are often the areas with the highest level of unemployment, particularly among single parents. There are many reasons for that, but one factor is that the training could be a barrier in a variety of ways, including the length of time that the course takes to complete, the degree of emphasis on written work and a very rigid interpretation of standards, because, as the Committee will be aware, local authorities provide the training, and that can vary.

I am dubious about imposing yet another standard that may have the perverse outcome of driving people into using unregistered care, because it is another obstacle for local people who want to apply to be child minders. We would not want that to happen. If we are to ensure that children are properly protected, we do not want to increase the use of unregistered child care, on which we cannot impose standards at all. If we were to achieve the outcome that the hon. Lady desires, and if such an amendment were made, it would be important to consider what the outcome might be on the supply of registered child minders.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I begin by agreeing that, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has managed to get the wording in all her amendments absolutely right. They have the impact that she hoped for, which is to modify the information, advice and training duty on local authorities, and to require them to ensure that registered child care providers have free access to training within one year of registration.

The other amendments roll on in relation to other aspects of the child care work force. The overall effect would be to place an obligation on all early years and later years providers to undertake child protection training approved or accredited by the local safeguarding children boards within a specified time, and for it to be done free of charge. The entire Committee should be in full agreement with their intention, which is to ensure that child minders and other child care providers are fully trained to understand their roles and responsibilities in protecting children or in notifying the relevant authorities if they suspect that the child may be at risk of or subject to harm.

However, for several reasons there is no necessity to include those requirements in the Bill. Activities are in place to implement children’s trusts and to establish the local safeguarding children boards. The boards come into existence next April, taking over from the area child protection committees.

The welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage, which we will come on to in clause 43, will be given force by regulations. They will require registered providers to operate to a satisfactory standard and to keep children safe, which means that they will need to have child protection procedures in place to ensure that they can show that they are doing so.

Providers will inevitably need to arrange for their staff to undertake the training that they need to fulfil those responsibilities, including training in child protection issues where that is needed. We also intend that early years registration regulations will require providers to have in place, at the point of application for registration, a statement setting out their own child protection policy based on the local safeguarding children board procedures.

Following consultation, regulations under the Children Act 2004 are being prepared. They will require local authorities to set up local safeguarding children boards to develop policies and procedures for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local authority area. That will include training people who work with children.

Amendment No. 216 is not necessary, because its provisions are ongoing, and I shall return to whether the provisions should be free or charged for. Clause 13 does not make new policy. It simply updates an existing duty to reflect the reform of regulation and inspection that the Bill envisages.

The existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to secure the provision of advice and information about child minding and day care, as well as the training of people who provide those services. Under clause 13, local authorities will have wide powers to provide or support the provision of information, advice, assistance and training, and they will be able to help providers receive that training.

We do not intend the Bill to specify the matters on which information, advice and training will be given; they will be specified in regulations. The training that the hon. Lady asks to be included in the Bill will be included in the regulations, and I should have thought that local authorities will take seriously the fulfilment of duties that the Bill places on them.

The regulations and guidance will be updated to reflect the new welfare requirements—and the early years foundation stage, which we will come to in clause 43—which all providers have to meet. That includes requirements on child protection. We intend to consult on the welfare requirements to ensure that we get them right, once the Bill has completed its stages. If, in the future, it became apparent that it was necessary to require local authorities specifically to support child protection training because they were not doing so for some reason, we could do that in regulations under clause 13. There is a clear direction of travel, which comes not only from this Bill, but from the 2004 Act and the establishment of the local safeguarding children boards.

On charging, I can see no reason why the hon. Lady wants to prevent local authorities from being able to charge as appropriate for the services that they offer. That will extend their capacity to work with providers to ensure that a wider range of them get the information, advice and training that they need. Inevitably, if local authorities have to provide that service free of charge, the provision that they make will be limited by whatever budget they set aside for it and there will be no contribution from those who benefit from the training—the individuals concerned and the providers who employ the staff. That is why I do not agree that the service should be provided free of charge.

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport are important. There can sometimes be unintended consequences, such as driving people to unregistered or unregulated provision. No one wants that. I hope that, in the light of those remarks, the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I paid close attention to the hon. Member for Stockport, because it is always difficult to strike a balance between not making requirements too onerous and getting the necessary level of child protection training. We must evaluate that. We will have difficult choices ahead, given that we want to professionalise the work force. It will be difficult to get the right balance and there will be difficult decisions to be made along the line. I am sure that we will debate that as we progress through the Bill. I am not dismissing the comments, I am just bringing things to a conclusion.

I feel reassured and thank the Minister for saying that the matters will be dealt with in regulations. Whether or not to charge is always a difficult decision, especially when we have regulations and people are already providing a facility. The wording that we have just approved says that authorities “may” charge. In other spheres—I will not make the mistake of going off into them—I have seen examples of ridiculous charges being imposed on foster carers who have been involved in the provision of care for a long time. I rest my case on the idea that the authority “may” charge. Sometimes it is important to make certain courses free of charge. That will come out as things are rolled out, with the setting up of local safeguarding children boards and the publication of the regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 14 - Inspection

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 8, line 9, after ‘by’, insert ‘or under’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 137.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

These are drafting amendments that simply add the phrase “or under” to ensure that Ofsted’s power to inspect local authorities in relation to the new duties under the Bill extends, as was intended, to functions conferred by regulations as well as those specified in the Bill.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the Minister clarify the naming of local education authorities? What are they supposed to be called following the “Every Child Matters” document and the 2004 Act?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We have signalled that what used to be called “local education authorities” will simply be the “local authority”. The integration of education and social care now involves the children’s trust, led by the local authority, and a wide range of other partners are included in the arrangements.

The clause makes the new local authority duties and powers in relation to improving well-being, securing child care and providing information subject to inspection by Ofsted. It ensures that those duties are subject to an independent inspection process including annual performance assessment and joint area reviews. Given the importance of independent inspection, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Charges for early years provision at maintained school

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We touched on issues relating to the clause when we discussed amendment No. 17. However, it would be helpful if the Minister set out the position regarding charging by maintained schools for child care of children below the age of four. To what extent do primary schools have such facilities? Is the provision of chargeable child care a growing trend? What will the mechanics be for making such charges?

Is there a concern that popular primary schools will be able to insist that parents send their young children to the pre-school setting on the grounds that if they do not, their children will not be admitted to reception class when they turn four? That could enable the school to charge hefty fees as a way of raising extra funds. How do we prevent that from happening and are there such stipulations in the revised admissions code to prevent that?

I know that the Government have withdrawn the admissions code for various, internal, Labour party reasons—[Interruption.] That sneaks out occasionally. It would help if the Minister put the Committee’s mind at rest that use of a pre-school child care setting in a maintained school will not result in such consequences.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Section 451 of the Education Act 1996 prohibits schools from charging for educational provision made during school hours. Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that we do not create problems for schools as a consequence of establishing the early years foundation stage and removing the legislative distinction between early education and care for those young age groups. That is why the clause is necessary.

On the extent to which charging currently exists within schools outside the prohibition, the picture is variable. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens. It varies enormously from little or no charging to charging where it is possible. I hope that that gives him the sense that it is a very varied picture. Through the regulation-making powers, we intend to have clear guidance about what is possible and to give some advice to schools where there is currently no distinction between education and child care at those young ages. We need to be clear for what they are and are not allowed to charge. We hope that some of the variability will end when they get the guidance.

It would not be a fair admissions criterion to suggest that only those who pay extortionate charges for out-of-school-hours provision would be considered for admission. I suspect that a school that tried to formulate an admissions policy in those terms might quickly fall foul of complaints to the schools adjudicator, who would make close reference to the code of practice. He would be likely to say that such a policy was unfair and not allowed.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that any fears should be allayed by the schools admissions code of practice and the existence of an adjudicator, through whom, by making complaints, one can get a swift answer to whether a specific policy is fair in any given situation.

With those assurances, I repeat that the clause is needed to prevent problems arising for schools as a result of the fact that we are removing the distinction between education and child care for early age groups.

Clause 18 - Meaning of childcare

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 9, line 25, leave out from ‘child’ to end of line 28.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 280, in page 9, line 32, at end insert—

‘(c)unregulated crèche provision.’.

No. 109, in page 9, line 40, at end insert ‘and is registered’.

No. 281, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—

‘(g)any person not registered under sections 33 and 34 below.’.

No. 110, in page 10, line 5, after ‘hospital’, insert

‘or other medical establishment providing clinical treatment or long term care’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As the clause deals with the meaning of child care, it is fundamental to what we have been and will be debating. Again, the Conservative amendments are probing amendments.

Amendment No. 111 would leave out the part of subsection (2) that refers to “education for a child”. This might be more relevant to the debate that we will have about the clauses around clause 41, which relate to the early years foundation stage and the criteria on which that will be drawn up. Education should not be referred to as child care and we want to remove that part of the definition. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why education should be considered as part of the wider definition of child care.

Amendment No. 109 is again a probing amendment relating to foster carers. We have had many debates in Committee on previous children’s legislation relating to the registration of private foster carers. Many Conservative Members have argued long and hard that the Government should take the matter more seriously in legislation. We have a fundamental problem with an underground industry of private foster arrangements, the scale of which is unknown, but it has been estimated to involve in excess of 10,000 children. Many of those originate from west Africa and are subjected to conditions akin to that which led to the death of Victoria Climbié, which gave rise to Herbert Laming’s report and the 2004 Act.

Many of us think that the Government should go further and make it a punishable offence for those who choose not to register private fostering arrangements. We should not rely on local authorities to seek out private fostering arrangements and to investigate whether the welfare of the child or children involved is sufficiently taken into account. By their very nature, those people—they are often extended relatives or family contacts, particularly with overseas families, especially those from Nigeria and Sierra Leone, where it has been an particular problem—try to be invisible to the authorities. That is often to the detriment of the children’s health, welfare, education and so on. The Government need to go further. The 2004 Act holds out the possibility—a slim possibility, given its wording—of tougher legislation if the sort of voluntary approach taken in that Act does not bear fruit, as many fear it will not.

Subsection (4)(f) recognises private fostering. If an authority locates private foster arrangements made by people who have not registered their existence, it needs to take a closer interest in the welfare of the child than if the child were with those who have legitimate private fostering arrangements. It is an exploratory amendment, to see exactly what the Government mean when they refer to private fostering. Hence, we say in the amendment that foster carers must be registered.

Amendment No. 110 defines the establishments where child care is not deemed to be taking place—that is, they would be exempt. Appropriate children’s homes should clearly be exempted, as should care homes, whether local authority homes or independently privately run children’s homes, and residential family centres. However, subsection (5)(a)(iii) refers only to

“a hospital in which the child is a patient”.

I am curious as to why it is limited to “a hospital”, which is why we seek to add

“or other medical establishment providing clinical treatment or long term care”.

From my reading of this part of the Bill, certain medical establishments should be included. For example, Mr. Amess, it should include hospices, a subject about which you and I were talking only this morning in Westminster Hall. It should also include other centres where children with long-term chronic conditions go to have forms of treatment—to be attached to machinery or whatever other therapy is necessary. Surely we do not expect those premises to be treated as if they provide child care. They primarily provide medical care and, in some cases, especially in hospices, respite care.

It is a probing amendment to see why the provision is so tightly defined as to exempt only hospitals. Again, the Minister may say that the definition will be widened in regulations, but it would be helpful to include it in the Bill. I see no downside in adding the words suggested.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points on his probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing the responses.

The Liberal Democrat amendments come back to my obsession about the crèche example, but I do not need to repeat the argument. I was allowed to use the word crèche in amendment No. 280. That is part of the problem—I was told that the amendment might not be accepted if I used a word that was not in the Bill. That is how I got tangled up in trying to make similar proposals in various places. Amendments Nos. 280 and 281 have much the same purpose in that they try to point out that if something is not regulated, it should perhaps not be considered as child care so that parents will understand that it is unregulated.

The Minister kindly provided us with a copy of the exemptions power, which I have skimmed through but have not had time to read fully. It mentions the crèche and my point about being open for less than two hours, as well as a number of other circumstances in which some form of looking after children will not be regulated. I accept that we do not want to create over-burdensome regulation when there are bound to be instances in which the temporary looking after of children will be required. However, the conclusion of the exemptions power says:

“Exemptions are important in ensuring a proportionate approach to registration and inspection. However, in every case, providers that are exempted will be able to join the Ofsted Childcare Register and enjoy the benefits that it brings. In particular, we will ask Ofsted to encourage those providers for whom registration ceases to be compulsory to join the new register and continue to be tax creditable.”

I agree with that, and I would see it as a positive if it meant that Ofsted would be respected because people had voluntarily signed up to the register. However, I am a little concerned that it might give even more credibility and strength to parents’ belief that a particular facility is regulated when it is not. I am not sure what that means, and I welcome the opportunity to ask the Minister to address my concerns, which come back to the point that a parent has to know when looking after children is unregulated. I prefer not use the term child care in such circumstances.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am perplexed by amendment No. 111. It seems to strike at one of the main principles of the Bill, and one of our main objectives. It would exclude education and supervised activities from the definition of care, and, therefore, of child care. In practice, that would perpetuate the split between education and care for young children, which we are trying to remove. I thought that we wanted to remove that distinction because we all agreed that the way in which young children learn and develop—the way, therefore, in which many providers provide care—depends on the integration of education and care. For young children, those things happen together; they are indistinguishable. Care cannot be considered to be of good quality unless it provides young children with opportunities to develop. That is why I am perplexed: the amendment seems to seek to undo one of the central aims of the Bill.

In the case of school-age children, local authorities would be required only to deliver child care that did not have any educational content, which I am sure is not intended to be an outcome of the amendment. It would also allow providers to avoid registering by declaring that they were delivering education, not care. That would undermine the essential safeguard that registration gives parents and children. I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will agree to withdraw that amendment.

On amendment No. 109, I think it absolutely important that the welfare of children who are privately fostered is safeguarded and protected. The hon. Gentleman took part in the discussions when the 2004 Act was going through Parliament, and he acknowledges that we made provision in that Act by updating the law on private fostering arrangements, strengthening the private fostering notification scheme and providing additional safeguards. I accept that the notification scheme is not a registration scheme, but he is aware of why that was done. It is still soon since the 2004 Act was passed and all the debates that took place on it. We concluded then that we ought first to try a notification scheme that offers a robust framework of safeguards, and we should see how that works before introducing a tighter system of registration. In the lifetime of the registration provisions of the 2004 Act, up to November 2008, the Government will report on the impact of the new measures, the regulations and the national minimum standards before deciding whether they are sufficient and whether we need to introduce a registration scheme.

Amendments Nos. 280 and 281 seek to exclude unregulated crèches and early-years providers not required to be registered under clauses 33 and 34 from the meaning of child care in clause 18. That would mean that early-years provision for three to five-year-olds in schools would not be included in the definition of child care either, because that is not required to be registered under clause 34. It would also have the presumably unintentional effect of excluding all child care for the over-fives from the meaning of child care, because that is not required to be registered under clause 34.

I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to raise the quality of child care as high as possible, but we need to consider the matter from the perspective of parents. The reformed inspection and regulation regime in part 3 will ensure that the majority of child care used by parents is registered by Ofsted and tax creditable. All parents have a role to play by making responsible, informed choices about how they use child care. They will be supported in making those choices by the information provided by local authorities, including on the differences between registered and unregistered child care.

On amendment No. 110, I assure the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the definition of a hospital is the same in the Bill as in the Care Standards Act 2000. It covers all the examples he gave in relation to long-term and short-term health care treatment and palliative care and includes hospices for children, so there is no need to add other medical establishments. Everything we can think of is encompassed by the definition. With those explanations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister, but amendment No. 111 is intended to be preliminary to the group on foundation years around clause 41. We are concentrating on children under five, for whom education in the traditional sense of the word is not appropriate, so we have had some explanation and a bit of a setting out of the ground on which we will be manning the barricades when it comes to that later section.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Staffing?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Or even staffing the barricades, as the Minister says. I do not wish to be even more confrontational.

On amendment No. 109, I do not share the Minister’s assurance that everything will be made rosy by the weak notification provisions in the Children Act. Effectively, we have had a notification scheme for a number of years, and all that is in the Bill is a slightly more formalised scheme. Many of us fear that that will not take us any further forward.

A further fear is about something we have never quite understood, which is why, all the way through the Children and Adoption Bill, the Children Bill and previous responses to reports such as that from Herbert Laming, the Government were not prepared to take the plunge and go for a formal private fostering registration scheme. I genuinely remain mystified as to why, despite a lot of advice to the contrary from their own Members with great experience of child social work, they have not been prepared to go all the way. The amendment was probing, and I shall not push it to a vote at this stage, but I remain perplexed by the Government’s stand on the issue.

Finally I come to amendment No. 110. If the definition of hospital under the Care Standards Act 2000 extends to all the facilities for long-term care hospices, that is precisely the point that I was trying to stress. Presumably that fact will accompany the Bill in guidance. It would have been useful to have had some reference or definition in the Bill. The Minister’s assurance is welcome, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 19 - Meaning of “young child”

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 10, line 21, at beginning insert ‘(1)’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 242, in page 10, line 21, leave out ‘young child’ and insert ‘baby’.

No. 278, in page 10, line 25, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘two’.

No. 243, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—

‘(2)For the purposes of this Part and Part 3, a child is a “young child” during the period—

(a)beginning immediately on the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of two, and

(b)ending immediately after the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of four.’.

No. 112, in clause 39, page 19, line 33, at end insert

‘and

(c)distinguish between such requirements applicable to children under the age of 2 (babies) and those aged over 2 (young children).’.

No. 248, in schedule 1, page 53, line 35, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—

‘8(1)Section 81 of the 2002 Act (the key stages) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1)(a) for “the age of six” substitute “the age of five”.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, we are setting out our stall for later debates. We take the view that children beneath the age of four should be treated differently from other children, and children from nought to two should be treated differently as well. I will not go into great detail but will elaborate more when we reach the foundation years definition, particularly in clause 41.

I will take the first five amendments together, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will speak to amendment No. 248, which is slightly different.

The first five amendments would split the definitions in clause 19. The lead amendment has been helpfully supplied by the Clerk, I think, because it does not appear a very dramatic amendment on which to hang our arguments, simply involving inserting the figure “(1)”. I am told that for mechanical reasons it is necessary to group the other amendments under it. If we push the amendment to a vote, it may seem rather finicky, but the amendments—the first five—need to be taken holistically as a group.

It would be useful to have advice from the Government on the terms that they use. All sorts of phrases can be tossed around, but it is useful to make a distinction, as we have by referring to children between the ages of nought and two as babies and those aged between two and four as young children. We could have used a host of other definitions, but I am advised by child care experts that the two terms we use would be generally acceptable in referring to those age groups. We could use infants, we could use young children and very young children, or we could use very, very young children and very young children, but I think that babies and young children are simple enough for the age groups that we are considering. That will become important in later clauses, when the Bill tries to define the developmental requirements for babies and young children of those age groups, which we believe are different from those for older children.

The amendments are self-explanatory. We are simply elaborating on the clause, the bottom line being the definition of baby—nought to two—and of young child—two to four.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendments Nos. 278 and 248 are probing amendments that try to obtain clarity about the overlap between “Birth to Three Matters”, a strategy, and the foundation strategy. By its nature, “Birth to Three Matters” is a play-based strategy. The introduction to the framework says:

“The Framework takes as its focus the child and steers away from subjects, specific areas of experience and distinct curriculum headings.”

That is as it should be for what I think we will now call babies and also for the first year of being a young child.

By contrast, the foundation stage, which includes the reception class of a primary school, will begin to bring in more formal teaching. Indeed, many reception classes now begin serious work on chronological awareness and phonics teaching, and many parents and teachers see reception as the start of proper school. The early-years foundation stage brings together both those strategies. It incorporates “Birth to Three Matters” and the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, which also emphasises play. Both will then be incorporated into the early years foundation strategy. On page 49, the 10-year strategy says:

“The Government proposes to create a single quality framework for services for children from birth to five. The new framework will take an integrated approach to care and education, reflecting the reality of the way childcare services operate. It will be underpinned by a play-based approach to promoting children’s development and learning, building on children’s experiences to help them extend their skills and develop their understanding and confidence.”

My concern is that, if we incorporate the rising-fives into the meaning of young child and incorporate strategies applicable to toddlers to children in the reception class, that may have a dampening effect on raising standards in primary schools.

My understanding is that, for example, the literacy and mathematics frameworks cover children from three to 11, so they overlap the early-years foundation strategy. Is a territorial battle going on in the DFES over these strategies? If there is, who is winning? Is it those who are concerned about rigour and standards, or is it the other guys?

I was reassured to an extent by the wording in the document circulated to members of the Committee, which sets out some broad principles about the early-years foundation stage. I am not clear what the status of the document is—whether it is guidance, regulation or merely ministerial intention—but I am reassured by a number of paragraphs, particularly paragraph 13, which says:

“There has been a long debate about the extent to which early education should be formal or informal, often summarised by the extent to which the curriculum is or is not ‘play’ based. EPPE concludes that in the most effective centres ‘play’ environments were used to provide the basis of instructive learning. The most effective approach, and the one which will be at the core of EYFS, is both ‘teaching’ and providing freely chosen yet potentially instructive play activities.”

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the importance of play-based activity for children. Unfortunately, I had to miss the earlier part of this afternoon’s sitting because we were launching the all-party group on children’s play, but we will discuss some of these matters in our debates on the Bill and in other forums.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I am concerned about the debate on this matter, because some people would like the play-based approach to be extended further up the age range into primary school, which would not be effective in raising standards. We do have problems.

Tomorrow, Ofsted will publish a report that is cause for concern. It is cause for concern that 43 per cent. of 11-year-olds leave primary school without having achieved level 4 in reading, writing and arithmetic, so we should not be looking to extend playing further up the age range into primary school. I want to draw from the Minister the extent to which the play-based strategies applicable to babies and toddlers will be extended to the reception class of primary schools.

I am reassured by the document, paragraph 18 of which says:

“Suggested activities for babies will necessarily differ from the sorts of activities which are appropriate for 3 and 4 year olds.”

That is reassuring, as is the next paragraph, which says:

“We will also ensure we retain a clear focus on the Early Learning Goals, which set out challenging expectations for children’s achievement at the end of the Foundation Stage ... particularly in the areas of communication, language and literacy, and problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy where many of the existing goals are pitched at level 1 of the national curriculum.”

I am extremely reassured by paragraph 35, which says that in developing the early years foundation strategy,

“we will take account of the findings and recommendations of the Rose Review ... into the teaching of early reading”—

synthetic phonics—

“ ... in primary schools”.

Having said that, it would still be helpful if the Minister said something about the territorial dispute over reception classes, and whether that dispute is going on in the DFES or at a more philosophical level between practitioners and educationalists in the country as a whole. Are reception classes part of proper school or part of a child care settlement?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We are trying to create a more coherent definition and framework that combines education and care for young children, and that leads them seamlessly into the more formalised learning of their primary school years.

I am confused by the two different sets of amendments. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is the author of one set, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is the author of the other. In any event, amendment No. 248 seeks to do something completely different from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

The first group of amendments would replace the intention to provide a coherent birth-to-five phase with a disjointed set of phases that are not focused on the child and that create an unnecessary and artificial distinction between periods of child development. We all know that children develop at their own pace. It is simply not possible to say when any child ceases to be a baby. A child who develops quickly should not be held back by staying in the baby phase, but should be allowed to move on.

In fact, the “birth to three matters” framework and the foundation stage overlap considerably to allow for the fact that children develop at different rates. We propose to remove that overlap by having one coherent phase in the early years foundation stage through which children will move at their own pace. It is meant to be a stage-related framework through which children will progress according to how quickly they reach certain stages. It is not an age-related framework.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I agree with what the Minister is saying. I wonder whether the calls for this change came from experts and providers in the child care field—I understand that there have been difficulties in working with the two frameworks—rather than its being initiated from the Department.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The practitioner world certainly see this as the next logical step on the journey that we have been undertaking with the definition of the foundation stage and the development of birth to three matters. Providers and practitioners find that useful. However, as many of them care for children from very young up to five, they feel that it would make sense to have a single coherent phase, particularly as there is an overlap to allow for the fact that some children will leave birth to three matters earlier than others.

Some anomalies would result from the proposal to split into a baby definition and a young child definition. Let me give an example. Two children—one born on 2 September 2006, the other born on 31 August 2007—would both be moved into the two to four phase on 1 September 2009, even though one would be just two and the other would be nearly three. For individual children that might be appropriate, but we cannot legislate that that would be appropriate for all children. We know that small children can make huge progress in a matter of months. There is a great deal of difference generally between what a child of nearly three and what a child of just two can do.

We shall have a debate about this on clause 41, so I shall not dwell on it now. I will simply say that what we intend to do here is completely counter to the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to withdraw it. We will certainly resist it.

That brings me to amendment No. 248, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It seems to be going in completely the opposite direction. It would bring the start of key stage 1 to the beginning of the reception year when children are four. I am surprised by it, given some Opposition Members’ strong feelings about the use of the word “taught” and about the appropriateness of formalised learning for very young children. I do not agree with the amendment and I wonder whether many of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends really agree with it either.

We want to see a coherent foundation stage from nought to five and then we want children to begin their key stage 1 learning in primary school at that appropriate age. I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman was talking about in terms of territorial splits and so on. This is an issue about which people have strong views, but I do not think that it is about protecting territory either inside or outside the Department. I think that people want to do the best for children. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I want to add a further comment on amendment No. 248. I recently visited a first school in my constituency, and saw synthetic phonics being used right around the school. The head teacher pointed out that one of the differences between the reception class and the first year of the first school was that, in the reception class, numeracy and literacy were not dealt with in one hour sessions, but had to be in clever, bite-sized portions right through the day. The amendment would be dangerous because it would mean four-year-olds sitting down to one hour of literacy, which would be ridiculous.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are having a little foray into this territory. The essential developmental stages of a child between the ages of nought and two will become clear later on. It is very different from what happens subsequently.

I would have been delighted to have been at the group launched by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and I duly responded to her invitation, but my priorities had to be with the Committee. I hope that I can attend future events and that the launch got off to a successful start.

Play is essential to children in their early years, which is why we have serious reservations about the way in which parts of the Bill are structured. They attempt to “educationalise” or “schoolificationalise”—crazy words that pressure groups have come up with—and detract from the prospects of children developing in the way that they should, without being put into any quasi-curriculum process from far too young an age.

There is a clear strategy to our approach. Amendment No. 248 relates to a schedule rather than a clause. However, rather than detain the Committee, we will live to fight another day on clause 41 and to go into more detail about why we think that it is essential to differentiate between early years children. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 22 - Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 294, in page 11, line 20, at end insert—

‘(iv)the particular needs of childcare in rural areas.’.

Part 2 relates to Wales. I have tabled the amendment even though I do not have a great deal of faith in the form of legislation used because it puts too much emphasis on the detail of what the Welsh Assembly should encourage Welsh authorities to do. I am sure that the provision of child care in rural areas in England has its own difficulties, and it certainly has in Wales. The amendment has been tabled to remind the Welsh Assembly that rural issues are important. The Welsh Assembly Government are south-east Wales-centric, believing that everything revolves around Cardiff, in the way that the Westminster Government are south-east England-centric, believing that everything revolves the south-east of England.

The amendment would prompt and encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that child care provision in rural areas is taken into account. I went around on Saturday with the Rev. Ian Charlesworth, who is responsible for Sure Start provision in the Brecon area. He explained that a big difficulty is ensuring that children from very rural areas get there to benefit from the experience. I understand also that registered child minders cannot provide that facility in houses other than their own. There are more suitable ways of going about that in rural areas. I do not understand the reason for the requirement and it seems to me that if child minders could use a domestic residence other than their own, or other premises, that might be more suitable and enable more children to participate.

My main purpose is to encourage the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the children of rural Wales enjoy the same facilities as the children of urban Wales.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about families in rural areas, whether in Wales or England. He is right to say that it will be for the Assembly to tackle the problem. It may be some comfort to him to know that the Welsh Assembly Government have considered it and recognised its importance in their child care strategy, “Childcare is for Children”, which explicitly acknowledges the need to contend with the fact that child care is likely to be less accessible for parents in rural areas.

I understand also that child care will be specifically considered within the new Wales transport strategy and in the guidance to the regional transport consortium for the development of a new round of local transport plans. It will be necessary to take account of child care matters in thinking about the development of transport. The duty is drawn broadly, which gives the Welsh Assembly the wherewithal to take the needs of rural areas into account. However, the detail must be left to the Assembly.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I am greatly concerned about the Bill’s provisions in relation to the National Assembly for Wales. I am reminded of the story about someone going to a reference library to look up Wales and finding the entry, “For Wales, see England.” The Bill seems to read across from England to Wales. It gives no relevance to the fact that there has been a devolved settlement and that the Government of Wales Act 1998 is in full force.

I tabled—too late—an amendment to improve the clause by providing that the Welsh Assembly Government may, by regulation, require Welsh local authorities to secure the relevant sufficiency of provision, so far as is reasonable. Why should the Westminster Government dictate to the Assembly Government how they look after child care? Wales has moved far beyond England in child care provision. Every child over the age of three in Wales now gets 10 hours of free child care every week, provided that it is in an early years environment. There are forces families in my constituency, and those people are stationed at different times in England and Wales. When they come to Wales they see that the provision is much superior, and are pleased to take up the facilities.

The Bill is hugely prescriptive about what the National Assembly should do. The approach could be minimalist, but it seems almost impressionist, with huge swirls of colour across the Bill. It would be better if the provisions were simple and allowed the National Assembly for Wales to have powers in a simple form that enabled it to do what it wanted.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Before we launch into any more of the clauses in part 2, perhaps I could disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his assumption that they are a Westminster imposition on the Welsh Assembly Government. They are not an imposition: they contain measures that the Welsh Assembly Government wanted and are written in the way that they wanted. This is a completely devolved matter, and the phrasing of the clauses was a matter for the Welsh Assembly, just as the task of drafting regulation and guidance, which will fall to the Assembly as a result of the powers that it secures under the Bill, will be a matter for the Assembly. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the drafting, he should take them to the Welsh Assembly and have his debate there.

To give just one example, clause 22 replicates clause 6, but there is an extra provision to ensure that sufficient child care provision makes use of the Welsh language. The Welsh Assembly clearly wanted that addition and it is entirely happy with the wording of all the clauses.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Is the Minister confusing the Welsh Assembly Government with the Welsh Assembly? They are two entirely different things. As far as I know, the Welsh Assembly did not see the Bill until it appeared in the House, although the Welsh Assembly Government might have seen it. There is a fine but substantial distinction between those two terms. At some stage—it will not be as a result of the Government of Wales Bill, which was published last Thursday—the Welsh Assembly will have its own powers to make primary legislation. When it does, such confusions and misconceptions about the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly will not occur.

Clause 27 - Duty to provide information, advice and assistance

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 13, line 4, after ‘section’, insert

‘, in a form which is fully compliant with the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 305, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—

‘(6A)Information, advice and assistance provided under this section shall be in such a form as to protect vulnerable children and young persons.’.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Under amendment No. 303, local authorities would have a duty to comply with the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993, as they should and, indeed, will do. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that the National Assembly in Cardiff and, indeed, the National Assembly Government will insist on local authorities complying with the law. The amendment is, however, another reminder of the fact that information should be provided in a form that is understandable and of best value to families that speak Welsh as their first language in the home.

Amendment No. 305 would ensure that local authorities provide information in a form that protects vulnerable children and young persons. I am reminded of an incident that was related to me by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) in which her local authority sent tender forms to transport providers which indicated where disabled children lived. Such information could be taken advantage of by people who want to make contact with vulnerable children. Therefore, a duty must be placed on local authorities not to disperse information that could be misused by people who do not have young people’s best interests at heart.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that section 6 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 requires public bodies—Welsh local authorities are classified as such—to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in connection with the provision of services. That covers his aspirations with amendment No. 303.

In addition, section 28 of the 2004 Act requires local authorities in Wales to have regard to

“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”

in the discharge of their duties. That covers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns in relation to amendment No. 305. Legislation is already in place.

I am aware of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that they are being examined. The law to deal with such situations exists, but practice may fall short of what is expected. I therefore ask him not to press the amendments.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Given the Minister’s reassurance on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 28 - Inspection

New Clause 12 - Repayment of financial assistance: right of appeal

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that the relationship between local authorities and child care providers is maintained at the best level and that disputes in which local authorities want to reclaim moneys from child care providers for their services, on the basis that they have not provided that which they contracted to provide, can be resolved in a more low-key manner than through the courts or other processes. The new clause provides that if there is a dispute as to whether a repayment or part of a repayment should be made, it should be done through a tribunal set up for that purpose by the National Assembly for Wales. That should enhance the relationship between local authorities and providers.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I was becoming a little worried. I am certainly slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear whether he had consulted the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly about the frankly burdensome requirement that he seeks to place on them to set up a special tribunal to hear appeals from providers against a Welsh local authority’s decision to ask the providers to repay funding that the authority had given them. Perhaps the fact that he did not say that he had consulted them means that we can assume that he did not.

Mr. Williamsindicated assent.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

He did not, which disappoints me, given his previous strictures. None the less, we discussed setting up separate appeals processes for providers when we dealt with similar amendments on the English clauses.New clause 12 is slightly different from his previous amendments, but the same arguments still apply. Welsh local authorities are already working with child care providers in the private, voluntary and maintained sectors, and they will need to build on the relationships that they have developed to fulfil the duty to provide sufficient child care. That means more, not less, co-operation. We do not really want there to be fights, wars, territorial disagreements or any other military symbolism.

I appreciate that providers should be able to seek redress if they believe that the local authority has not acted properly. In the first instance, of course, one would expect them to sort out their differences with the local authority as amicably as possible. Providers who have had contractual arrangements with local authorities will have recourse through the courts if they want to challenge a local authority’s demands to repay funding, but it is important that the authorities have the power to require funding to be repaid to ensure that they can get value for money. The power is a lever for value for money in contractual arrangements with providers who are not maintained providers.

Providers always have the option of complaining to the public services ombudsman for Wales if they are not happy with the local authority’s response to their complaint. Depending on the circumstances, they can also always take action through the courts by way of judicial review if they believe that the local authority has acted illegally or irrationally.

Given those safeguards, it would an inefficient use of funds to require the Welsh Assembly to set up an entire tribunal system to consider such complaints, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the motion.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have listened very carefully to the Minister. I assure her that my intention was to make the process and the relationship between providers and local authorities better and more productive, but I shall heed her advice in future and ensure that I consult the Welsh Assembly and even the Welsh Assembly Government, if I am allowed to approach those exalted bodies, before I have the temerity to table an amendment or even a new clause.

The point has been made. I am sure that we will be able to resolve the matter in the Welsh context, perhaps by regulation, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 31 - General functions of the Chief Inspector

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5)Regulations may confer further functions on the Chief Inspector relating to early years provision or later years provision in England.’.

I will not detain the Committee long given the hour and that it is dark outside. The amendment goes back to the debate about regulation and the powers of the executive order. It merely tries to replace subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the number of functions for Ofsted and replaces that with a regulation that can be prayed against or debated under the affirmative procedure. That will mean we have a chance to debate whether we extend the remit of Ofsted. There will be serious concerns if Ofsted’s role extends too far beyond the educational sphere.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is to ensure that significant additional functions are not added to those of the chief inspector without first being subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, I understand that. I reassure him straight away that the provision is not intended to be used for any substantive change to the functions of the chief inspector. It is important that the Secretary of State can act in response to issues or concerns that may arise. It is difficult by definition to predetermine when that might be. Regulations governing such requirements could be prepared only once a particular issue had emerged. Obviously, the amendment would place considerable constraint on our ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances.

The main argument is that the provision is not new. It replicates the provisions of section 2 of the Education Act 2005, which were carried forward from previous legislation, which was the School Inspections Act 1996, from a Conservative Administration. The arrangements are long standing and have been used well and proportionately under different Administrations. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am sure that Labour Members raised such points at the time of the original Act. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, but her reassurance is on the record, which is helpful. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 32 - Maintenance of the two childcare registers

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

In representations that we have received on the issue of the two child care registers, a number of organisations were concerned that it might be confusing to have two. Will the Minister comment on how that would be dealt with, so that there is no confusion?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Once people become familiar with the new regulation inspection framework, they will see that the matter makes sense in the panoply of new arrangements that the Bill is putting forward. There will be an early-years register for all providers of care for children under five, who will be compelled to register. There will also be the Ofsted child care register for children aged over five but under eight. That will be split into two parts. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know, child minders will be required to register, and providers for those aged over eight may register voluntarily. That reflects the new structure of regulation and inspection in the Bill, which reflects the early-years foundation stage and so on, and it makes sense in the light of the new arrangements that we are debating. Clearly, Ofsted will do its best to ensure that people understand the new arrangements. They will become familiar with the arrangements once they become well known, and they are fairly well known already.

Clause 33 - Requirement to register: early years childminders

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 34, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

No. 284, in clause 34, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (4).

No. 123, in clause 51, page 25, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

No. 124, in clause 52, page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

No. 202, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert

‘(ac)an order under section 33,’.

No. 203, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert

‘(ad)an order under section 34,’.

No. 206, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert

‘(ag)an order under section 51,’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The principle that I shall talk about in relation to amendment No. 121 also applies to amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 17 in relation to clauses 51, 52 and 34 respectively.

Amendment No. 121 would remove subsection (2) from clause 33. That subsection gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to enable a child minder to carry on child minding while not being on the register. Before the relevant document was circulated, I could not envisage any circumstances in which that would happen, particularly given the importance of regulating child minding. However, the note sent by the Minister sets out a range of types of provision that will be exempted. I am not sure what status the piece of paper has, but it sets out a large number of reasons why a child minder would not need to be registered and could carry on child minding without being on the register.

The paper talks, for example, about child-minding provision that operates for less than two hours a day or on fewer than six days a year. It says that nannies and babysitters should be exempted. However, those are exempted under existing legislation. The list goes on to talk about child minding provided between 6 pm and 2 am, which means babysitting, either in the child’s home or other domestic premises. Also on the list are babysitting in hotels; crèches that enable parents to go shopping or engage in sporting activities; and activity-based provision, such as that which involves drama, dance, arts and crafts and sport, where the child is looked after while the activities take place.

I am reassured by the piece of paper circulated last night about what the exemptions are all about, but why does the Minister feel that the broad provision in the Bill is necessary? Why does she not incorporate those specific exemptions in the Bill or in regulation? She could have published that at the same time as the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 relate to regulations under what will be sections 33, 34 and 51. These simple amendments would ensure that any such regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am glad that, having seen the note that we circulated, which reflects the current position and how we apply it in the light of the new arrangements in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has accepted both the principle of exemption and that the examples that we have included are—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he does not accept the principle. I must have misunderstood him; I thought that he was saying he was reassured by what he had read in the note and that the exemptions were reasonable. The principle is important.

With regard to exemptions, we are talking about situations, which, were they not exempted, would be required to go through the whole panoply of registration and inspection by Ofsted. They would be required to deliver the early-years framework if caring was for children under five.

The situations that we have defined—where provision operates for less than two hours a day, or on fewer than six days a year, or where nannies and babysitters are caring for children in their own homes—reflect the fact that there is part of the arena of child care that is within the province of parents. I have heard the argument put by Conservative Members on many occasions that within the more private and domestic sphere, parents themselves have a responsibility and a duty to satisfy themselves with the care that they leave their children within. It is not the case that every single situation, however brief and for whatever purpose, could or should be regulated by Government. There must be an appropriate balance. That is why the power to exempt is in the clause, and the paper that we circulated last night gives some indication about the situations that we would seek to exempt.

I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be disproportionate to require that settings in which children are looked after for such short periods, or in their own home, should be registered. At present, Ofsted has to decide whether a particular provision counts as child care and therefore needs to be registered, and that is often a difficult decision for Ofsted to make. Care does not happen in isolation: care and early education happen simultaneously. However, at present, care is required to be registered and education is not. When older children play football at an after-school club, is that child care that needs to be registered, or is it activity-based provision, which does not? The Bill’s new approach will take away that grey area about what is or is not required to be registered. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured by the paper that we circulated.

Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 would constrain our ability to adjust the Bill to meet the needs of changing times. They would require exemption orders to be approved by both Houses before they came into force. We take seriously the need for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, but for the exceptions, the arrangements that we are proposing are proportionate and satisfactory. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Of course the Bill does not clarify the grey area, or it would not be necessary to include the list of activities not covered by the requirement to register activities. It would be absurd for a babysitter or a nanny, or the chap who looks after children playing football on a Saturday morning, to have to register. We agree with the Minister on that. Perhaps the legislation should be drafted so that it does not include those activities in the first place. If that is not possible, it would be better if that were incorporated either on the face of the Bill to make it clear that the activities are not covered by the requirement to register, or by regulation published now with the Bill to make it absolutely clear. That would remove the grey areas. The matter has been aired, and we have it on the record that those activities are not meant to be registrable child-minding activities, which I think is helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.