Childcare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2005.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 35 - Applications for registration: early years childminders

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 32, after ‘give’, insert

‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in clause 36, page 18, line 13, after ‘give’, insert

‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.

No. 31, in clause 53, page 26, line 32, after ‘give’, insert

‘which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.

No. 34, in clause 54, page 27, line 13, after ‘give’, insert

‘which relates directly to prescribed matters,’.

No. 44, in clause 61, page 31, line 19, after ‘give’, insert

‘, which relates directly to prescribed matters’.

No. 47, in clause 62, page 32, line 8, after ‘give’, insert

‘which relates directly to prescribed matters’.

No. 276, in page 32, line 32, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

No. 204, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert—

‘(ae)an order under section 35,’.

No. 207, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(ah)an order under section 53,’.

No. 209, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(aj)an order under section 61,’.

No. 210, in page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(ak)an order under section 62,’.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

These are probing amendments to check whether the Government have got the right balance when it comes to the registration requirements for child minding. We clearly see the need for an inspector, a registration process and a central register. Conditions might well need to be set in certain circumstances to ensure that children are kept safely and properly while absent from their parents. However, we also want to see a light and transparent touch, which is why we would like the Government to reassure us that the right balance has been achieved.

Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 31, 34, 44 and 47 relate to the applicant being required to give information by the chief inspector. They would specify that the information should directly relate to prescribed matters. In seeking to include the extra phrase in the clause, we are trying to ensure that those who make an application will be aware that there is some limit to the information that the inspector can request. They will know exactly what pond the inspector will be fishing in. The amendments would mean that there was a rational and transparent limitation to the way in which the inspector could go about his business.

The change would apply to clauses 35, 36, 53, 54, 61 and 62, which deal respectively with applications to the chief inspector to register as early years child minders, early years providers and later years child minders, for children under eight; with other later years providers making an application in respect of premises; with child minders making voluntary applications to register; and with child care providers making voluntary applications to register. We have tried to cover the clauses under which, quite rightly, the inspector plays a role in the registration. As I have said, we would like to be reassured that that role is limited to what is relevant as opposed to covering a wider perspective. If the Minister has examples of when the inspector might wish to take a wider perspective into account, I would be grateful to hear from her.

We are keen that there should not be a fishing expedition for no good reason. A reasonable test is that the information should relate to prescribed matters. That seems to get the right balance and would mean that the information was relevant to registering as a child minder, but was not overly bureaucratic because of the broadness of the test. In other words, there would be a boundary to the questions that could be asked.

Amendments Nos. 204, 207, 209 and 210 would ensure that the provisions in clauses 35, 53, 61 and 62 would be subject to a statutory instrument and that they would return to the House before the Secretary of State could make changes to the regulations on registration. We want the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to ensure that the House has some control over the way in which such processes might be changed in the future.

This is a probing amendment. We are not concerned about any obvious issues at the moment, given that what the Government propose is reasonable, largely speaking. However, as a brake on making future changes we hope that the process might be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. That would mean that the Secretary of State would not wish to go through the process unless it was felt that there was a need to change the existing regulations.

The amendment would mean changes to the way applications have to be made to the chief inspector to register as an early years child minder or a later years child minder. Changes to the voluntary registration of child minders and other child care providers would have to be determined by statutory instrument rather than the stroke of a pen on the Secretary of State’s desk. That is part of the light-touch approach we would like to see and dealing with the matter in this way would mean that such changes would be less likely to happen. On the whole, the way in which the Government have set out the case is perfectly reasonable, so we would like to know why they want the power to change it in the future. If they want that power, why should it not be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in a statutory instrument Committee? On that basis, I am interested to hear the Government’s view of the amendments.

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

I support amendment No. 276. I do not feel inclined to go into a long debate about “may” and “must”, and I am sure that no one else would want me to. I will not because I have done it so many times in relation to local plans and goodness knows what. The amendment refers to clause 62, which is quite a way on in the Bill. Subsection (6) states:

“The prescribed requirements for registration may included requirements relating to—

(a)the applicant

(b)the premises on which the childcare is being (or is to be) provided”,

and so on. It is vital that that provision should say “must” rather than “may”. I leave that for the Minister to contemplate. If we are seriously talking about a system of registration and regulation to improve quality, we should not be rather casual—that is implied by the word “may”—about the sort of information that has to be lodged in the register.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (MissKirkbride) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on the amendments. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that they were probing amendments, so I hope that I can convince hon. Members that they are not necessary. I shall do my best.

The first group of amendments—Nos. 19, 22, 31, 34, 44, and 47—would require the chief inspector to restrict the information that he seeks to that which relates directly to prescribed matters. They would mean that the chief inspector could reasonably require the applicant to give only information that relates directly to matters that are prescribed.

The hon. Lady will have noticed that information requests are already limited to those that are reasonable. “Reasonable” is a well-known concept in the law, even if there is occasionally debate about what on earth it means. It sets a boundary beyond which the chief inspector cannot go. The hon. Lady perhaps feared that the clause would allow a fishing expedition. My first point to her is that the word “reasonably” already restricts any sudden desire by the chief inspector to go on fishing expeditions for unnecessary and unreasonable information.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I respect the Minister’s point. How would that then be enforced by the applicant? If the Bill were to say that a request for information was to be for only prescribed matters, the applicant could make a case direct to the inspector. If it is a test of reasonableness, will the applicant have to go to court?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The ultimate arbiter of the meaning of reasonable is of course the court. That is one reason why we sometimes debate what it means. I suppose that the ultimate authority would be a judicial review, which is one way to test reasonableness, but that is rather over the top unless the applicant is very rich and has money to burn. It is a well-known fact that public office holders in this country do not abuse their office by going too far. That is because statutory powers contain the word “reasonable”.

The clause does not limit, as the amendment would, the information that the chief inspector might seek, beyond reasonableness, to prescribed matters. In certain eventualities, if he is to carry out his duties sensibly, he will need enough flexibility to be able to ask for information in addition to what is prescribed. That will then enable him to decide whether a person is suitable to be registered, so he does not need to go on multiple fishing expeditions and intrude into people’s lives. Were we to accept the amendment, in some instances the chief inspector might not have enough power to obtain that further information. That would not be helpful to the industry or to the person who has applied to be registered. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that, as the chief inspector’s powers are bound by reasonableness, which is the safeguard sought by her amendments, that will normally be sufficient.

Amendments Nos. 204, 207, 209 and 210 require the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations on the requirements that all childminders must meet for registration and group care providers must meet to be registered on the voluntary register. The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Committee must take seriously, as the Government do, the need to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers. The Bill contains a number of delegated powers.

There are key orders in the Bill that will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but these powers are the kind of regulations that are normally, and have been for some time in parliamentary custom and practice, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, we are not stepping out of line. Even though the regulations are being made under the negative procedure, they are laid on the Table of the House. Anybody with a concern about them can pray against them and ensure that there is a debate and that they are scrutinised more actively. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the affirmative procedure for every set of regulations to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny.

The House recognises these order-making powers as suitable for the negative procedure, so we are not stepping out of line or doing anything unusual. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will consider whether there are any concerns about or dangers in the powers proposed in the Bill for the negative procedure. The only other thing to say to the hon. Lady is that if there were an affirmative procedure for such regulations, we would all be doing a lot more hour-and-a-half debates in Standing Committees, and we would probably need to open a few more Rooms and have a few more Chairmen available to enable us to do all the work. I hope that I have reassured her.

Under amendment No. 276, the requirements for the registration of group care providers, such as out-of-school clubs, would cover all matters listed in clause 62(6)(a) to (e). The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred specifically to that clause. It covers applications for group care providers who are not required to register but who choose to register on the Ofsted child care register. Clubs for the over-eights would be the most obvious example.

Clause 62 states that registration requirements may relate to the applicant, the premises, the arrangements for children on the premises, the person caring for the children and other persons on those premises. It clearly indicates what we propose to deal with in the registration requirements.

The hon. Lady wants “may” to be “must”. She deliberately decided not to have a proper philosophical discussion about the difference between “may” and “must”, which was a bit disappointing because I should have liked to get to the bottom of why she feels so strongly that “may” should be “must”. There is no doubt that the inspector will consider the information to which I have referred. “Must” is unnecessary; “may” is sufficient to give him the power to ensure that he considers the right information.

The hon. Lady should recall that providers will be subject to the requirements set in regulation. She will have seen the paper that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families provided for the Committee about the proposed regulations, as well as a paper outlining the proposals for the Ofsted child care registers. We intend to emphasise the importance that we place on those particular matters. She should have a sense of how we envisage the regulations developing.

We will also consult on the regulations underpinning the Ofsted child care register prior to implementing them. Having “may” means that the proposed consultation will be real. If we were to prescribe in primary legislation precisely what provisions should be included, and then consult on what they should be, we would prejudge the consultation. Having “may” in the primary legislation will enable us to take into account in the regulations any comments made in the consultation that the industry and others who are involved want to bring forward.

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

Is the Minister honestly suggesting that those requests should not be made? Surely, we need that information on the register. Nothing is on it that should not be provided. We need to know where the premises are and who runs the extended club, or whatever the particular provision is. “Must” does not prohibit additional points being made, and it is difficult to foresee a situation in which any of that information should not be made available.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Lady is right that the inspector will want such information to be available when he decides whether to register a provider. However, there will be consultation with all those who have an interest in what ought to be included in the regulations underpinning the register. If, before the consultation, we were to prescribe what must be required, we would be prejudging the consultation’s outcome. There is no enormous difference in principle, but because we are going to consult, the flexibility of the current wording is helpful. She may disagree with that violently, or strongly enough to want to vote on her amendment, but that is our position. She appears unconvinced. Perhaps I have unconvinced her again, as I did on an earlier amendment, but that is as much as I can say. We may have to agree to disagree.

I also hope that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove has had sufficient reassurance to withdraw the amendment.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am pleased to tell the Minister that she has largely persuaded me of her arguments, not least because the idea of spending more time in Standing Committee is quite a killer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 36 - Applications for registration: other early years providers

Clause 38 - Conditions on registration

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 8, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 25, in page 19, line 9, at end insert

‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.

No. 26, in page 19, line 14, at end insert

‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

No. 37, in clause 57, page 28, line 31, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.

No. 38, in clause 57, page 28, line 32, at end insert

‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.

No. 39, in clause 57, page 28, line 37, at end insert

‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

No. 50, in clause 65, page 33, line 39, after ‘he’, insert ‘reasonably’.

No. 51, in clause 65, page 33, line 40, at end insert

‘, provided such conditions relate to prescribed matters.’.

No. 52, in clause 65, page 34, line 2, at end insert

‘, as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

No. 208, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(ai)an order under section 58,’.

No. 211, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(al)an order under section 66,’.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

My arguments are similar to those used on the earlier group of amendments, but there is an interesting dimension. In the discussion on clause 35, the Minister persuaded us that the key test is one of reasonableness, and some of the amendments would introduce such a test. They would go further, however, and, as in the previous ones, require that the information that the chief inspector requests relates to prescribed matters. Given that debate, I am interested in the Minister’s arguments as to why the amendments that would introduce a reasonableness test should not be made.

Clause 38 allows the chief inspector to

“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”

at any time, and to vary or remove conditions at any time, on compulsorily registered early years providers. Such conditions should be reasonable and related to prescribed matters. Clause 57 introduces the same power to

“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”,

but on compulsorily registered later years providers, and clause 65 does the same thing for voluntarily registered providers.

The clauses are similar to those that we just debated, but they impose conditions on providers who are on the register. There should be a test of reasonableness, for all the reasons that the Minister set out. It would be unreasonable not to be reasonable and therefore the test should be included, even if she will not go as far as our other amendments on prescribed matters.

I could make similar arguments about the “prescribed matters” amendments. They are about ensuring fairness, transparency and a light touch, and preventing the chief inspector from going on fishing expeditions. Obviously, child care providers do an important job, and parents wish to be reassured about conditions. Nevertheless, there has to be a test of reasonableness for those providing that facility.

If the Minister wishes to resist the amendment, will she give an example to show why we should not limit the test of reasonableness to prescribed matters? I am interested to know why clause 28 is more open-ended. It sets out conditions that might relate to the cost of providing facilities, the range of equipment and all sorts of other things. It could involve a considerable expense for those already registered who are creating an environment for children. There should be a test of reasonableness for what is expected of them.

I am less enthusiastic about amendments Nos. 208 and 211, which would also require the affirmative resolution procedure for the provisions. I heard what the Minister said and I dare say that she could persuade me again. I am interested to hear her observations on why the provisions should not be subject to that procedure. If she wishes to stand firm against the amendment, that is all the more reason why the Committee should be able to consider such matters further if the Secretary of State wishes to make changes.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope again to convince the hon. Lady that her amendments are not required. The group as a whole concerns the conditions that can be attached to registration and the procedure for making regulations governing the activities of providers registered on the general child care register. Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 37, 39, 50 and 52 propose that the word “reasonable” be inserted in the provisions, allowing the chief inspector to impose conditions on registration.

Amendment Nos. 25, 38 and 51 would limit the conditions that a chief inspector may attach to registration to conditions relating to prescribed matters. He currently has powers to impose conditions on the registration of providers. Those are important because they give him the flexibility to ensure that the requirements that providers have to meet are appropriate to their circumstances.

The amendments would limit the conditions that the chief inspector may attach to the registrations to conditions that relate to prescribed matters. We have had a bit of a canter around that, but it is important that the chief inspector continues to have the flexibility to impose the conditions on registration that he thinks fit—rather than to have that flexibility limited to prescribed matters—to ensure that children are appropriately safeguarded in all situations. The clause will allow Ofsted to take into account individual circumstances that might require control over and above the general registration and regulatory requirements.

Perhaps an example will help. The chief inspector might want to impose conditions of registration that take into account the facilities available. He might decide that a provider may not care for children under the age of two because there are no nappy-changing facilities, which are necessary to meet hygiene conditions and requirements, and to ensure the privacy of children.

In addition, conditions are used to limit the number of children who can be cared for, or to say that the provider cannot care for children overnight. Those conditions, made by Ofsted, are printed on the certificate of registration that providers have to display so that parents can see the conditions and ensure that they are met. It is neither helpful nor necessary to restrict the conditions that can be placed on registration to prescribed matters because there will be circumstances in which the inspector is unable to impose the limits he thinks necessary to provide a safeguard. We cannot possibly prescribe all the instances in the Bill or in regulations, and the inspector needs to be able to exercise his professional judgment.

Conditions are placed on registration for entirely sensible reasons: to support the safeguarding of children and the improvement of their outcomes—that is what the Bill is about—by making provision comply with rules appropriate to the situation.

In respect of that wonderful word “reasonably”, amendments Nos. 24, 26, 37, 39, 50 and 52 make the sensible point that, if reasonableness is so important, why is it not in the Bill? It is a good argument, except that—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister does not accept it.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Except that it is already implied. To put it in the Bill would not add anything. I shall try to convince the hon. Lady of that.

Clause 73 enables providers to appeal to the care standards tribunal against the imposition of a condition. Therefore, there is a route of recourse if providers believe that unreasonableness has been applied to their circumstances. That provides an independent element in the judgment of the reasonableness of the chief inspector’s actions, which should address the hon. Lady’s concerns.

As reasonableness is already implied, if we put it in the Bill, we will simply be repeating what the law already states in regard to the exercising of the chief inspector’s functions. If we were to begin to do that, we would, to be consistent, probably have to double the size of every Act of Parliament. Although the hon. Lady made a good and sensible argument, the word “reasonably” is not necessary and would simply add to the burden of words in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 208 and 211 require the regulations governing the activities of providers registered on the general child care register to be approved by both Houses before they come into force. A document has been made available outlining the proposed requirements for providers on the Ofsted child care register. Implementation of the regulations will be subject to discussion in Committee and subsequently during the formal consultation. The regulations will be used to support the registration requirements. Therefore, there will be a great deal of discussion with those on whom they will have an impact. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that that will allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which will enable those affected by them to know clearly what the requirements contain and to have an input during consultation.

We take the need for parliamentary scrutiny seriously, but the points that I made on the previous group of amendments are also pertinent to this group. I hope, therefore, that, instead of making them again, the hon. Lady will remember what I have said and be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am a bit disappointed. It is always nice when the Government accept one of our amendments. For a moment I was in danger of believing that the Minister would accept the test of reasonableness. However, I understand her reasoning, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 41 - The learning and development requirements

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

I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 20, line 16, leave out from ‘which’ to ‘, and’ in line 17 and insert

‘young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 20, line 16, leave out

‘are required to be taught to’

and insert

‘should be assimilated by babies and’.

No. 220, in page 20, line 16, leave out ‘taught to’ and insert ‘experienced or mastered by’.

No. 222, in page 20, line 35, at end insert—

‘(c)any particular teaching style to be prescribed, or

(d)any specific “curriculum content” to be delivered.’.

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

This is one of the most important clauses. For that reason alone, we must get the wording right. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that it is right, despite my continuing support for the early years foundation stage. I thank the Minister for circulating the document. I am not ready to be tested on it yet. I have read it, but I need to do more work on it and do not want her to ask me whether I have read page so-and-so. There is some excellent material in the document, and I am really pleased about that.

I hope that the Minister treats my amendments as the most serious that I have tabled.The main problem is the inclusion of the word “taught”. If we are talking about a curriculum—a vision—for nought to five-year-olds, clearly it is not appropriate to have teacher-initiated activities, which is how I interpret the word “taught”, throughout those stages. The document—I could not express this better myself—makes the point that there will be a mix of child-initiated learning and teacher-initiated learning. It is dangerous to include “taught”. The quality of the work force will be important for successful delivery, but things will take time. There could be a problem with people knowing that “taught” is in the Bill. Sometimes, the best-meaning parents in the world try to cram their children with information at a very early stage and, in doing so, possibly damage development. There are dangers.

Amendment No. 220 was my first stab; I prefer amendment No. 221, which is rather better. Rather than use the word “taught”, the Bill should say:

“young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability”.

The Minister obviously has drafting experts, but I feel that the amendment encompasses what we want to say. It does not preclude teaching, but it ensures that the approach is not unidirectional, which is basically what the Bill says. Someone pointed out that there is something sexist about amendment No. 220. If I could have expressed it in any other way, I would have done, because that is the last thing that I want to be.

I have thought long and hard about whether “play” should be included, but because there will obviously be some teacher-initiated activities at age four, it is difficult to use that word. However, I will give it some more thought.

On amendment No. 222, I said in my opening speech that we should have more “nots”. Subsection (5) states:

“A learning and development order may not require”.

I am pleased to see paragraph (a). I mentioned that I visited a first school in the past two weeks where it was clear that there was good teaching—I am happy to use the word “teaching”, possibly, in the context of four-year-olds. Even at that age, the good teacher-led process involved a mix of child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities throughout the day. The Minister laughs at my using the word “teaching”, but my example expresses exactly what I mean. I do not want a two-year-old to be taught in a traditional way. There will be some teacher-led activities, but the situation is different as we move through the different stages. The word “taught” is wrong in the context of nought to five-year-olds.

However, returning to the “nots”, amendment No. 222 provides that no particular teaching style should be prescribed and that no specific curriculum content should be delivered. I am trying to make the provision much looser, so that the Minister’s planned long consultation, which is to be applauded because the work will not be completed until 2008, is as open-ended as possible.

To open up the provision, the amendment introduces extra “nots” rather than what might be interpreted as a “must”. I know the Minister’s commitment to consulting the experts, and that is right, but this important clause needs to be less prescriptive. What is required is leadership and thrust, not prescription.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendments, and in particular amendment No. 221. Our amendment No. 113 seeks to achieve the same objective. Many of us see flashing lights when “taught” appears. That is the nub of the problem.

As I said, the Opposition think that the nought-to-two age group is crucial, and the way one interacts with babies, as we sought to call them—the Committee was not minded to back us in an earlier amendment—is different from what comes afterwards. That age group should be differentiated. The use of anything remotely educational and “schoolified”, as one of the groups put it, is inappropriate for that age group.

There are several welcome ways in which this clause and others that deal with this aspect of the Bill set out a lot of detail that we have not had before. The objective of creating a single framework for the birth-to-three guidance, the foundations stage, the elements of national standards for under-eights day care and child minding is helpful. We must streamline and simplify the strategy when dealing with those children.

Just the mention of “taught” can be taken wrongly. It creates visions of ticking boxes and achievements that represent a scaled down version of what is expected of children as they go into the formal school system. Part of the problem is not having the regulations.

I welcome the vision that the Minister provided, but I am not sure how it will translate into regulations and guidance for the people providing the service. All of us should subscribe to the vision. I subscribe to section 15 in particular, which says:

“The aim of the Government is that the early years framework should replicate the things which good parents do as a matter of course for their children and which they would therefore expect to see in a good childcare setting.”

That is an important and key part of the vision. We are not trying to take the place of parents, nor impose things on them; we are trying to encourage, not impose, good parenting. In the past, the balance has often been lost.

Many of the children’s charities that have taken an interest are concerned. In their professional experience, they see problems with the use of “taught” and suggest an alternative wording to reflect the reality that children learn through play. Amendment No. 113 uses a phrase which, in terms of parliamentary lingo, is full of holes, I am sure. It states that the matters, skills and processes should be “assimilated” by babies and young children of two and under, rather than “taught” to them.

Assimilation is all about absorbing and taking things on board, and that is what the development of babies and young children is all about. Ours is a probing amendment, to put on record our objections to the use of the word “taught” and to try to come up with a better use of words that would dissuade anybody so minded from thinking that the provision was intended just to produce a miniature version of the assessment frameworks for schools, which apply later in a child’s life.

The explanatory notes use very educational language with regard to clause 41. They mention “six areas of learning” and use the phrase “expected to achieve by” in respect of young children. One would expect to see such things for schools and for later in a child’s life. The notes discuss:

“educational programmes, setting out what should be taught to young children”

and

“arrangements for assessing the learning”

of such children. I do not like such language, and it concerns us greatly. Local authorities, if they were so minded, could devise an assessment based on a slimmed-down, mini-version of the assessments for the development of children that apply once they get into primary schools and beyond. Such schemes would be entirely inappropriate for babies and young children.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. There is no doubt in my mind that the clause intends to give a directional steer for early years child care providers. The use of the word “taught” gives the provision a far more prescriptive sense than is intended, if we consider the vision in the guidelines that we have been given.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend is right; I should like to see the provision much more in terms of dissemination of the good practice that, as I pointed out, one would expect from the normal and natural good parenting that would be happening in any case.

This is a probing amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wishes to press her lead amendment to a vote, we will be minded to give it our support. I really think that the Government have to get away from the use of the word “taught”. It is only one word, but its implications and the extra ammunition given it by the explanatory notes are very concerning and could be dangerous. On that basis, I seek the Committee’s support of our amendment and that of the hon. Lady.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the use of the word “taught”. I shall not support them if they press the amendment to a Division because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the phrase “mastered by” seems sexist and also, like the phrase “should be assimilated by”, gets us away from the idea that young children spend time having a range of experiences rather than achieving certain skills and being very outcome oriented.

Ministers, however, should remind themselves of what they were in charge of in writing the national child care strategy, which stated that activities should 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.”

I fear that the Bill reflects neither that nor what is in the birth-to-three framework, also produced several years ago by the Department for Education and Skills.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me, and one or two other Committee members, about what is sexist in any of the amendments. I am genuinely puzzled about what she means.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The word “mastered” is a rather old-fashioned and sexist word to use when we are talking about small children.

My concerns are strengthened in respect of communication, language and literacy, which is one of the areas of learning and development. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. There is a risk, with taught literacy for children under the age of five, that some people will push children to read and recognise letters a long time before they are ready to do it.

It is good if children know how to handle a book. Once they recognise that a book is not just an object, but is representational in that it contains pictures of things in the real world, and once they know that stories come from books, that is the beginning of their becoming an active learner. However, if we concentrate on taught literacy, we risk turning off small children. It is a mystery how children learn to read.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I was listening with interest to the hon. Lady. I agree. When we picked up “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” we did not know whether we were reading a book, just enjoying a story or being taught, but having read it we enjoyed it, which meant that we developed personally.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

That is a good example.

A child I knew well became obsessed with the tube map at the age of four and loved drawing it and reproducing the colours. He lived in London and travelled on the tube and realised that the tube map was a representation of the trains in which he journeyed to his nursery school. At that moment, it became clear that although he did not know any letters, he was going to learn to read quickly because he had made the connection between the symbols and what was going on in the world.

We will deal later with the quality of the training and qualifications, but we all know that we have a work force that need to be improved. Perhaps if the Minister does not accept the amendment, she will be realistic and consider the matter and, on Report, change “taught” to “experienced by”.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I, too, support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

The clause is far too prescriptive. The reality is that other issues may be in conflict in respect of children of nought to two-years-old. Babies may be happy in a sandpit or doing whatever they are doing, but ensuring that all the boxes are ticked may hinder their personal, social and emotional development, and it may upset them if people have to ensure that they have covered all the areas.

I should love to hear more about the aspirational areas—problem solving, reasoning and numeracy—from Labour Members. I understand that there is a need to focus on that.

I support the amendment and although I have, perhaps, been slightly glib about one aspect of it, I hope that the Minister takes on board the serious point that it makes.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I should briefly like to agree with the points that have been made.

Children develop at different stages. A child could be damaged if they were pushed too hard to achieve all the goals that the Government have set out. It is not that Conservative Members do not understand why the Government want to do what is proposed. There are far too many children in our society whose chances are simply hopeless because of their experiences at home, and my hon. Friends and I entirely support what the state is doing under the Bill to improve their chances.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I have just realised that there is something that I forgot to say. The points made about a play-based approach, rather than a teaching approach, were endorsed by the all-party group on play, which met earlier this week.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The hon. Lady is right to point that out. We know that she is a champion of the cause. I should have said that we are grateful for her support—her emotional support, if not her actual support when it comes to a vote. I hope that Ministers listen to the points that have been made. The Government are seeking to make child care available to everyone nationally. Clearly, with regard to those households where children are not properly looked after, the state can have a role in making up for what parents are not doing at home. That is of benefit not only to those children—that is the first priority—but to our society in general.

I understand where the Government are coming from in being so prescriptive, but it just does not seem to us that their approach would work entirely, because children develop at different rates. We cannot rush them; doing so may well hinder them. For many young children, personal development is as much progress as they can reasonably be expected to make; that is apart from the other goals set out in the clause. Achieving that personal development in an unhurried and unthreatening fashion—at their own pace and when they are ready for it—may help them to learn better when they go to mainstream school.

I worry that the Government are trying to do too much and are setting up a framework that will be antagonistic to those seeking to put it into practice. Sadly, it could end up being counter-productive for those children that the Government most want to help. I urge them to reconsider the matter of just how prescriptive they want to be, and I urge them to allow a little more flexibility in the way that child care providers can look after children in their charge.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

First, let me say that there is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I and among other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about what we are trying to achieve, and the kind of environment and experiences that we want for young children, whether in child care or in their educational settings.

Frankly, hon. Members are getting caught up on their interpretation of “taught”. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said about our approach being prescriptive; I completely reject that. If she looks in any detail at the documents that I circulated, particularly the framework direction of travel document, she will see that that is not the case.

Amendments Nos. 113, 220 and 221 seek, in one way or another, to remove the word “taught” in reference to young children and replace it with alternative wording. The first point to note is that “taught” reflects language that is already used in the foundation stage and in the Education Act 2002 that was approved by the House for three and four-year-olds.

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

I do not know the answer to this, but is the word “taught” used in “Birth to Three Matters”?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I cannot recall whether it is or not. I have no doubt that someone will tell me in a moment. I shall try to get an answer for the hon. Lady.

The point is that the early years foundation stage will cover the wide range of processes, planning and teaching needed by practitioners to provide an effective, stimulating, play-based environment to enable young children to learn and develop at their own pace—a pace that is appropriate to their age and ability. That includes practitioners establishing relationships with babies and young children and their parents; planning the learning environment; supporting and extending children’s play, learning and development; and observing and assessing children’s achievements; and planning for each child’s next steps. That is far from the formal education that I believe is in Members’ minds when they think of the word “taught”.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

These comments very much come out of those made to me by my constituents. Putney is a typical part of London. It has many young mothers and young families with small children and babies, and the concept of babies and young children being taught is raised with me on the doorstep. There is an issue in the wider world that will need to be addressed. The amendments reflect not just the Opposition’s perception of the clause but the perception of the outside world.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Perhaps some of my comments later will clarify for the hon. Lady what we intend and what the meaning of the word “taught” is.

The early years foundation stage will continue to promote, as “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage already do, the kind of activities and experiences that all good parents

“do as a matter of course”

with their children—I was clear about including that phrase in the document, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham picked it out—and which they would therefore want to occur in any good child care setting. The standards are those that we set ourselves for our own children. My children are now in their 20s, but, had they had child care, that is what I would have wanted.

I cannot think of any activities that I as a parent did with my children that were not, to some extent, teaching. Children are not born knowing nursery rhymes, how to clean their teeth or how to tie their shoelaces. They are not born knowing how to speak. They learn that through interaction, initially with parents and, when they are not at home, with other adults. That is what we are talking about for child care. One cannot distinguish the process of having fun and playing from the process of extending opportunities for young children to learn. Sometimes they learn by assimilation—by observing—but not always. They learn through doing things with others. Parents encourage young children to imitate them, to say “Daddy” or “Mummy”, to model their behaviour after them. We are teaching children all the time, are we not?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The Minister is very sexist to say “Daddy” first.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I was reflecting other people’s common practice, not mine. I remember that my mother was perplexed when I took a conscious decision to refer to everything as she or her—dogs in the street, post people, everything—as a matter of course, to challenge the received wisdom that everything is assumed to be male unless proved otherwise.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The fact is that children who learn English as their first language always learn to say “Daddy” before they learn to say “Mummy” because it is easier for a child to make the d sound than the m sound. There is nothing sexist about that.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I thank my hon. Friend for a more scientific explanation of what tends to happen in practice, for whatever reason.

To take this further, practitioners who read and speak to babies and young children are helping—or teaching—children’s early speech and language development. That activity also supports—or teaches—social development and interaction. I assure hon. Members that, as the document makes clear, we will make this interpretation clear in the supporting document for the EYFS on which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has kindly acknowledged, we plan to consult extensively.

The issue goes to the heart of what we mean by “teach”. We are referring, as the previous legislation has done, to its natural meaning. With respect, it is a mistake to equate that term with a formalised method of learning and teaching. That is what hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are doing.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. I can tell her that, from my speed reading of it, the word “taught” does not appear in “Birth to Three Matters”. What she is saying seems very much to apply to children above the age of two, which is why we differentiated in what we proposed earlier and in our use of the word “babies”. Unless she had very advanced children—I am sure she did—teaching them to recite nursery rhymes between the ages of nought and two would not have been a goer. Does she not see that there is a difference between those who are aged nought to two years and those who are above two? That is what we are trying to get at in our amendments.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I do not accept that there is a difference, in that I think that the experience of the child is one of continuous development, and a continuous thirst for new things and for stimulation. The role of adults, be they parents or other carers, is one in which they quite naturally try to provide those opportunities and extend the range of children’s experience and therefore what they can do. What are picture books for? We sit with babies on our knees reading picture books, talking about the pictures and encouraging children to point and to recognise what is in the picture. Through that interaction, children are learning and adults are teaching.

The point is that we are using the natural meaning of the word “teaching”. We made such a reference earlier in the debate in relation to another phrase. The “Oxford English Dictionary” gives four meanings for the verb “to teach”. The first relates to doing so for a living. The second relates to imparting information or a skill to a person about a subject. The third relates to putting forward as fact or principle. The fourth is to cause to adopt—I could say “assimilate”—a practice and so on by example or experience. That is precisely what we are talking about.

The word “teach” encompasses all of those means by which children acquire new skills, knowledge and experience and all of the mechanisms by which adults help them to do so, either in an unguided way, by letting children experience things and reflecting that back to them, or in a more directed way. I assure hon. Members that that is the meaning that we are using. It is very wide-ranging and all the documents that we produced endorse that.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I thank the Minister for her definition of the word “taught”. There is still some concern in my mind about using it. The fourth definition that she mentioned included the words “to cause to adopt”, which sound pushy. The whole ethos is that children will learn and will adopt a behaviour or skill by example or experience. That exemplifies our concerns. The play-based approach is far more voluntary and far less pushy.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point. She is falling back on what is in her own head: what teaching means to her. I am saying that we are using the term in the widest sense: the sense that, in terms of the definitions that I have read out, is accepted. With regard to “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage, it is used in a sense that practitioners are already comfortable with and use implicitly. I am advised that although we do not use the word “teach” in “Birth to Three Matters”, it refers to the environment in which young children are cared for and educated, which is a similar term and similar points could be made about it.

The framework is set out in the definition and approach given and it gives practitioners examples of the sort of experiences that young children need in order to develop. I shall give some examples from the listening and responding part of the section entitled “A skilful communicator” because the issue of literacy has been raised. The effective practice that is encouraged to help children develop this part of their language ability includes encouraging playfulness, turn-taking and responses, including peek-a-boo and rhymes with young babies; talking to babies about what they have done through the day so that they will link words with actions, such as welcoming and preparing lunch; being able to explore and talk about things that interest young children indoors and outdoors, listening and responding to their questions, both serious and playful; and extending the range of stories, songs, games and rhymes from their own and other cultures and language. I do not think that any hon. Member could say that this a prescriptive, teacher-led, didactic approach of the sort that was referred to implicitly in the concerns of Opposition Members.

Amendment No. 220 would require the child to have some form of “mastery”. I shall not get into the argument of whether that is a masculine term; we have been there already. Apart from the fact that children learn at very different rates, some will appear to be accomplished—if I may use that term—at all that they are being shown and experiencing, while others will not. Children acquire those accomplishments in a number of different ways.

When we were preparing for today’s sitting—I admit it was rather late in the day and we may have got a bit hysterical: well, not hysterical, but we were seeing the funny side of things—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary speculated whether the proposals meant not showing a child how to tie his shoelaces because that might be too didactic, but setting a pair of shoelaces and a shoe in front of him and saying, “Right, Johnny. Experience your shoelaces.” I am being facetious, but Opposition Members are going too far in suggesting that we are talking about didactic teaching.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is not a good example. It is more like teaching a dog tricks; that is what we are concerned about. What is much more important is why a child has to tie their shoelaces. If they did not they would fall over and then there is the environment round them to consider, blah, blah, blah. Simply considering the act of teaching a child to tie shoelaces is to risk ticking a box showing whether they have been taught to do various tricks, which is not what it is all about—certainly not at ages nought to two. That is the difference between us.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I would be very surprised if there is not a parent in the country who has not attempted to teach their child to tie their shoelaces or brush their teeth.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Absolutely. That is not the point.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the point. I think that it is the point. The way in which children learn depends on a variety of different actions and methodologies used by the people caring for them. That will include, in some instances, guidance from the experience of seeing things done and being encouraged to imitate them and acquire the skill. That is true of young babies as well as children aged three and four, but not in terms of the example of tying shoelaces.

Amendment No. 222 would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying any teaching style and any curriculum content, which would include appropriate learning and development activities in early years provision. We know from research, whose findings we are implementing, that the centres that produce the best outcomes for children use play environments to provide the basis of instructive learning. We want to continue that. The most effective pedagogy, if I may use that term, is a mixture of experienced guidance by teachers or carers, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, and the provision of freely chosen but instructive play activities. Even then, when the child will be able to choose what to do and how to do it, and to play in the playhouse or whatever it is, the practitioner should more systematically observe what the children are doing and helping them, in a non-directive way, to get the most out of the activity. Therefore, while the child’s experience will be free play and activity much of the time, the practitioner must observe what the child is doing—

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

Earlier on, my right hon. Friend referred to peek-a-boo, which is a very good example. It is not a game about communication, but a first lesson in epistemology. I am sure that no babies know that, because when children play peek-a-boo what they are learning is that the mother, or whoever it is, is present even when the child cannot see her. The child finds that amusing and simply thinks that it is a game, but the practitioner knows that the child is discovering something about the world.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I agree with my hon. Friend. She endorses my point. However, amendment No. 222 would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying play-based learning, because that is a methodology, or phonics as part of the curriculum. I am sure that hon. Members would not want to do that.

In the current guidance we stress that the curriculum refers to

”everything children do, see, hear or feel in their setting, both planned and unplanned.”

Our approach is to give practitioners not prescription but examples of good practice that they can use to improve outcomes for young children.

I hope that, with that reassurance and those interpretations, particularly of the word “teaching”, Opposition Ms will not press their amendment.

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

I agree with most of what the Minister said, but I am disappointed that she will not reconsider the wording.

It is an obvious point, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the heading of clause 41. “The learning and development requirements” is a perfectly satisfactory heading. That brings us to ask whether there is a difference between learning and teaching. I believe that there is.

Most of the Bills on which I have served have been home affairs Bills, in which we try hard to get the words right because we know that they will be tested in courts of law. The words in this Bill will be used by the practitioners in the field, so it is immaterial whether a dictionary supports the wording. There is a difference between the meaning of a word on the surface and its connotations.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I agree. The problem is that if we do not have a debate on what “taught” means, those who have to make the assessments, in whatever form they are, can have a different interpretation—one that the Minister claims she does not mean and which we certainly do not mean. By reading the Bill in that way, the interpretation could become a reality.

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

That is exactly my point.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Does the hon. Lady accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the practitioners—those with whom we will consult—are the experts? As they already use the term in that way, they are not confused by the Government’s intention to use it in the Bill for a second time.

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

We need to distinguish between practitioners at different levels. I am talking about the well meaning and talented person who helps out at the local playgroup. Some of the press comments following the launch of the Bill were misguided, describing the early years foundation stage as madness. However, some people making those statements are self-proclaimed experts and their views carry a lot of weight in our press. The Minister must have been disappointed that what some people said about the early years foundation stage became a front-page story. I am committed to that stage, so I want it to work in the best possible way.

Owing to the way in which the amendments were selected, amendment No. 221 has come before amendment No. 220. I shall never understand that process, but it probably makes sense. I might push amendment No. 221, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham supported, to a vote. I hope that the Minister reconsiders the amendment. I realise that it is not perfect. I do not have the skills to produce it in the right language, but its sentiments are better than the provision in the Bill.

It was a shot in the dark when I asked the Minister whether “taught” was in “Birth to Three Matters”. I was impressed by the document, and I thought that “taught” would not be in it, so I am pleased that I was right. Page 10 says:

“As babies explore the world through touch, sight, sound, taste, smell and movement, their sensory and physical explorations affect the patterns that are laid down in the brain.”

Is that being “taught”? I do not think it is, not in my interpretation of the word, nor in the dictionary definition to “cause to adopt”, which sounds unidirectional to me.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will endorse another part of the document, which states:

“As they engage in pretend play with gestures and actions, feelings and relationships, ideas and words, they become increasingly imaginative. Children become creative”.

They are not being taught to be creative. One cannot be taught to become creative. The document says that children

“become creative through exploration and discovery as they experiment with sound, media and movement.”

The Government have provided so much excellent material that it argues my case for me.

When we use the word “teaching”, and when we get the sort of newspaper stories that followed the launch of the Bill, I am put in mind of a row of little baby chairs with perhaps six babies—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting that that is what the Minister means, but it is a connotation of what is in the clause.

The Minister should reconsider amendment No. 221, as the clause is critical for setting the scene for what we all want to achieve. We must get the wording right.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 41 - The learning and development requirements

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 41, page 20, line 19, after ‘children’, insert ‘, appropriately’.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. There are two amendments left on this clause: amendments Nos. 114 and 115 and they are being taken separately, although, for once, we would not have minded their being grouped together. That is the way things happen. If I may talk a little more laterally, we might not have to spend as much time on amendment No. 115. I tabled some more amendments on Tuesday, which appear as starred amendments Nos. 312 to 315, but, alas, slightly disappointingly they will not be called. The House adjourned while we were sitting on Tuesday and I thought that the amendments had already been tabled, but that was not the case. There we are; it is one of those things. Perhaps we can return to them on Report. In any case, there are themes that are common to the other amendments that we tabled.

I want to talk about what is behind the amendments. I have mentioned the subject several times before in Committee—to the point of tedium in the case of Labour Members, I am sure.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

And in the case of Members on this side.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for his great support.

I want to talk about the importance of attachment theory in babies and very young children. Conservative Members are great devotees of Sue Gerhardt’s book “Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby’s Brain”, as is the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I have a heavily thumbed copy if any Labour Members would like to borrow it later to be educated. They are old enough to be educated and taught one would hope. [Interruption.] And the Government Whip certainly hopes. It is calculated that about 40 per cent. of children in this country have an insecure attachment by the age of 12 months, as measured by various professionals. A lot research has shown that one can predict before the child is born—while the mother is pregnant—what their attachment classification will be at 12 months.

There are many studies and groups, such as OXPIP, the Oxford parent-infant project, which has done a lot of pioneering work, helped by Professor Bowlby’s theories on the issue and has been commissioned by Oxford social services to provide training in attachment; other similar projects are springing up around the country. They have identified that concentrating on babies between nought and two can make a lifelong impression on how the child and then adult will turn out, because of the nature of the way in which the child develops. That is why we want to separate the treatment of children below two and children over two and why amendment No. 114 would include a general reference to appropriateness in subsection (2) in the context of the way in which children are dealt with.

Children need sensitive, responsive care that allows them to express their distress as well as their contentment. The first two years are critical to a baby’s emotional development and, physically, to the development of their brain. Most toddlers have already learned their parents’ strategies for managing emotional arousal. If emotionally secure, they know that they are free to express their feelings and they are learning ways of managing them. If emotionally insecure, they will have learned to suppress or hide their feelings—perhaps to switch off from them if things are really bad—or they will have learned the strategy of making a big noise and fuss about everything that they feel. Those children are in danger of growing up unable to regulate their emotions well.

Parental behaviour and the behaviour of other carers—be that in a nursery environment—affects the development of the baby’s brain. Increasing positive arousal and decreasing negative arousal are both important and have effects on different areas of the brain. The most important kind of positive responsiveness initially is through physical touch, which is turning out to be extremely important for the development of children, but it also takes place through eye contact and pleasurable interaction such as playing games. The whole philosophy of play has come up before.

Social processes, by which the baby co-ordinates his system with the system of those around him, are what the early years in a nursery environment are all about. That is why the learning and development requirements in the clause must be deemed to be appropriate. We have moved away from this morning’s “taught” debate, but in this probing amendment we are attempting to insert the word “appropriately”.

In defining appropriateness, which will need to be defined more clearly in the guidance and regulations that will follow our deliberations, I am trying to lay down some of the ground work for what we consider is appropriate. It is all about the child’s physical and mental development. It is also about the parents. We know that babies of agitated mothers may stay over-aroused and live with the feeling that the expression of emotions explodes out of them, whereas well managed babies come to expect a world that is responsive to their feelings. A baby between the age of nought and two is still physically a part of his mother, who may be breastfeeding, depending on her milk, and who may regulate his heartbeat and so on.

We all have neurons at birth, Mr. Amess. Even you and I had neurons at birth. We may not have as many as we started with, but that may be as a result of what happened to us between the ages of nought and two. I do not wish to delve into your colourful past, Mr. Amess, and what happened to you in those crucial developmental years, but clearly something went very wrong for both you and me to have ended up in this place. We were, of course, slightly salvaged by our adherence to the party that we adhere to, unlike Government Members, who clearly had some shocking experiences before they reached the age of two. However, we all have neurons at birth.

We do not need to grow any more, but we need to connect those neurons up and make them work better for us. With more connections at an early stage, there is a better performance and a greater ability to use the brain. Between six and 12 months, there is a massive burst of these synaptic connections—I am sorry if I blind the Committee with technical stuff, but it is necessary—in the pre-frontal cortex. They achieve their highest density just when the developing pleasurable relationship between parents and babies is at its most intense. The neurons will not be functional until the child is about 18-months-old. We see that, in children who have not had the right sort of attention at an early age, the neurons are in a state of semi-chaos and are not as well connected. That is why attention is so crucial, because the brain grows most rapidly in the first 18 months. A baby’s brain doubles in weight over the first year of life, and difficult babies are often difficult because their parents or carers are emotionally unavailable to them.

That is why it is so important that if a child is not with its parents, the person with whom it spends time—a carer in a nursery—must give him the right sort of attention. It is not about ticking boxes or inspecting the nursery to make sure that the taps are in the right place and the loos and radiators work, crucial though those may be to creating the right environment. The single most important factor in that child’s development will be the contact and attachment that it builds up with its parent, or its carer in the parent’s place in a nursery or other environment. If that does not occur and stresses result, all sorts of problems can arise.

I am also making the point that happy babies are made by happy parents. Therefore, whatever we do in the Bill to make the attainment of appropriate child care even easier must be good for removing stresses from the parent and, in turn, that is good for creating a better reaction with the child.

I am trying to tease out some of the Minister’s thoughts, because I believe that she and I have the same objectives. We both want to achieve the same sort of development in the very early years for those children and make sure that their neurons are tied up neatly rather than chaotically. However, we do not want prescriptive measures to be imposed on child care environments that miss the point that we should be doing more to make sure that key workers in child care environments provide appropriate care to help those children develop. Nursery projects around the country have recognised that. The Sunderland infant programme aims to ascertain whether it is feasible, practical and economical to screen routinely for less than sensitive interaction and then to tailor interventions accordingly.

I do not disagree with most of what is in the clause, although we have concerns about how people may seek to define it. I am worried that the Government have missed a trick, because there is no mention of attachment in the Bill. I hope that it will feature in the guidance. That is why the amendments that we sought to table, but unfortunately were too late, specifically included secure attachment as one of the areas of learning and development listed in subsection (3), because we should be talking about personal and social development and about securing emotional development to positive attachments.

I would like the Government to respond to all this wonderful child psychology, which I am sure comes as second nature to you, Mr. Amess, by saying what importance they place on the appropriate treatment of very young children to ensure that they not only develop properly but, and most important, develop proper attachments with the people around them. If it is not the parents but an alternative child care environment, the key workers there must be primed, trained and alert to encouraging those appropriate attachments with the children. Nurseries should have a clear definition of a key person and clear evidence of the way in which those approaches are being implemented. Careful attention must be paid to any child expressing attachment relationships to the key person or others.

I am grateful for your sufferance here, Mr. Amess, but it is an important subject for many of us. I hope that the Minister can respond positively if not to the wording of the amendment, which is deliberately loose because it is a probing amendment, but to the principles behind it, that would send out helpful signals that the Government set great store on encouraging attachment. That is a key part of the way in which a child can develop more securely and positively in the first two years of his or her life in a child care environment away from the home. Therefore, I am keen to hear what the Minister says.

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

If I may comment on the actual amendments—[Interruption.] I am beginning to wonder whether I am on the right page. I hope that the Minister will agree with me. I want to say something quite different from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I believe that I am addressing his amendment No. 114.

I took the amendment to relate to assessment procedures rather than attachment theory and I intended to ask a question when we reached clause 42. If I may do that now, I will not need to speak on clause 42, which refers to

“A learning and development order specifying assessment arrangements.”

How much consultation will there be on appropriate assessment methods? “Appropriately” is a good insertion, and it ties in with my question on clause 42.

We are all concerned about those unfortunate newspaper articles following the publication of the Childcare Bill, in which some commentators suggested that it meant league tables for babies. We can say more in Committee to clarify the matter for those people who do not interpret the Bill in the same way. Those issues have to be addressed.

Amendment No. 115 is important.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order.

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

I am sorry, I am on the wrong amendment.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I shall speak briefly about the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I should like to assure her and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the specifics of the amendment.

The clause replicates the provision in the Education Act 2002, allowing for observation-based assessments of children. It is implicit in the wording of the Bill that the assessments will be appropriate and, as I have said repeatedly, that there will be full consultation on all aspects of the early years foundation stage. That will include arrangements for assessment.

The hon. Lady referred to some of the newspaper articles that inaccurately sensationalised the foundation stage when we announced it. She should have read the range of newspaper articles, because many people in more reputable newspapers sought to put the record straight. I have, and I am sure that she has, no intention of allowing the more lurid and sensationalised interpretations from some of the tabloid press to determine our actions on those matters.

The hon. Gentleman raised a fundamental point with which I agree. The importance of attachment for babies and young children is acknowledged as crucial. The feeling of security and safety, being valued and developing attachments to significant adults constitute the essential foundation without which the learning and development identified in clause 41 may be impaired. It is the bedrock, and it sets some of the essential conditions for maximising children’s development naturally, freely, safely and happily.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Bowlby and quoted other people. When I was teaching many years ago, Vera Falberg was for a long time the doyenne of attachment theory. Her ideas have been subsequently taken forward by more recent authors and eminent academic researchers. As a model for understanding the environment and personal relationships that a young child needs to develop, it has been well established that they need the safety and feeling of security from which they can experiment with the rest of the world and, through that, enhance their learning and development. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that that model is already deeply embedded in the materials that we have provided. It will be replicated in the early years foundation stage.

I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman an extract from something that appears on the “Birth to Three Matters” CD-ROM. We produce guidance, practice examples and a range of materials for practitioners. The extract is entitled “Attachment and the Key Person Role”. It summarises some of the main findings from modern researchers and translates them into practice for settings to consider. It states:

“The first few months of a baby’s life are important for the development of attachment. ‘Time spent together is crucial for a parent to tune into a baby’s non-verbal signals and to feel that a personal relationship is growing through smiles, gurgles, long stares and pre-verbal exchanges of sound.’ Lindon (1998) ... Selleck (2001) points to a growing body of literature which emphasises the importance of a continuing attachment relationship which links between key persons/practitioners who care for, play with and educate children in settings outside their homes in close association with children’s significant attachment figures from home.”

The paper helpfully makes a point that the researchers did: for attachment, a key person is not the same as a key worker. Many settings adopt the concept and role of the key worker, which is about co-ordinating activities and communications. For a young child, a key person is a person who develops a relationship with the child on a consistent basis.

Similarly, “Birth to Three Matters” contains quotations from well-known academics. The section on developing self-assurance states that

“the child who has benefited from security in her relationships is likely to develop a sense of self-confidence and assurance, so that she will have better resources to cope with difficulties.”

That is exactly the principle of attachment theory. Right at the outset, there must be a foundation from which children can explore their environment and develop relationships, and so learn and develop.

There are other examples throughout the document. Under “A Healthy Child”, the guidance states:

“Young babies ... crave close attachments with a special person within their setting”,

and “Effective Practice” states:

“Key person and parent handing the young baby directly to each other at the beginning and end of each day.

Establish shared understandings between home and setting about ways of responding to babies’ emotions.”

Those are just a few examples. I could go on, as there are many.

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the concept is not just included in the Bill but is its bedrock. It is embedded in all the materials that we produce. It is not included as an element of clause 41 because it is not part of learning and development. As I said, it is much more fundamental than that. It is the basis from which learning and development proceed. It is about the relationships through which children feel secure, safe, valued and loved. Without such relationships, they do not have sufficient stability, security and predictability in their environment to take the opportunities that learning, whether with parents or in a child care setting, offers to them.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is not necessary to incorporate either appropriate assessment or the slightly wider point that he made about the importance of attachment theory. We already recognise and promote it, and that will continue as we bring “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage into the early years foundation stage.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. That short debate was useful. I am greatly heartened by what she says about attachment theory and the concepts that I have outlined. I think she used the term “bedrock”: the essential foundation without which learning and development in this part of the Bill could be impaired. She said that the concept was already deeply embedded in the Government’s thinking, which is helpful. It is not mentioned in the Bill, but I take on board why that would not be appropriate. We needed to be assured that it was at the heart of the Government’s thinking and what they are trying to encourage.

We have our disagreements with the Government on the way in which the clause is laid out, harking back to the use of the word “taught”, but we do not disagree with anything else that is there. It is a matter of how people interpret it and put it into practice. Given the Minister’s support for the idea, I hope that she will put her money where her mouth is and ensure that projects such as OXPIP, which does such sterling work in Oxfordshire and in trying to promote its good work in other similar projects throughout the country, receive closer attention from the Government. OXPIP has tried to obtain greater Government support, financially and verbally, in the past. Its has shown that it adds serious value through what it does. That value is not properly appreciated for many years because by concentrating on those first two years, they might be preventing a child from going off the rails aged seven, eight, nine or as a teenager.

I hope that the Minister will consider in a little more detail some of the work that is taking place and those projects that are living on a shoestring with little public funding. It would be a false economy not to give them more attention than they have received in the past. If she would like me to arrange a meeting for her to see OXPIP at first hand, I would be more than happy to do that. If she came to visit, everyone would benefit.

On the basis of the great accord that has broken out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 20, line 28, at end insert—

‘and

(g)the baby’s sense of self.’.

Having had your sufferance before, Mr. Amess, I shall not go into great detail. I want to make a similar point about attachment theory, which is encapsulated in the phrase “the baby’s sense of self”. The amendment would add that to the areas of learning development by inserting paragraph (g) at the end of subsection (3).

It is difficult to define the baby’s sense of self, but the Minister touched on it when she talked about the self-confidence of a baby at that age—an assurance that flows from a good, secure attachment. It hangs on the definition of “baby”, which we have tried to change. Amendments that were starred and unable to be selected refined some of the criteria in subsection (3) by explicitly mentioning positive attachments.

It is worth noting that the sense of self to which the amendment refers comes from the success of the early relationships of babies, their response and what they feel. That is contingent on the well-being of the parent, which is why problems arise when the mother has post-natal depression and is unable to respond properly to the baby. Having heard some of the case studies and spoken to case workers in OXPIP, it is interesting how a mother cannot physically touch the baby, so that the baby is confused and turns away.

I have also watched some of the videos supplied by Professor Bowlby of babies left in crèches in playschools, which show that there is a way of introducing a baby to a carer—the key person who will be standing in for the parent during the day—that fosters a greater attachment with that person, rather than mum simply arriving, plonking down baby and departing, which instantly gets things off to a confused start. That is what the sense of self is all about.

There were some alarming figures the other day in that scurrilous rag The Guardian—

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Does the hon. Gentleman read The Guardian?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I did not read it myself. Somebody physically took The Guardian and passed on the expurgated version to me. I did not have to handle it, I am glad to say.

According to a new study by Adrian Angold, who is a British professor of psychiatry at Duke university medical centre in North Carolina:

“One in 10 preschool children, aged as young as two to five, could be suffering from anxiety, depression or other mental illnesses”.

The research shows that

“children aged between two and five have the same rate of mental health disorders as teenagers, and not much less than adults.”

That is alarming. We know—as you know, Mr. Amess, as a member of the Health Committee—the problems with the increasingly high prevalence of mental illness among young people. If that is beginning to manifest itself at the age of two, it must be as a direct result of those crucial first two years when the attachments have not been properly formed, the neurons have gone haywire—I will not go back over that—and a baby has not started properly to establish its sense of self and what he or she is all about and does not have the confidence and assurance to which the Minister referred.

Again, this is a probing amendment and I am sure that the Minister will tell me that she does not disagree with the thrust of it and that it is included as part of what goes on automatically. However, given that, as we have said, this is pioneering legislation, it would be useful for her to put on the record that there is something in the baby’s sense of self that goes much more broadly into the areas on which I have sought to engage the Committee. I could quote great learned tomes, as the Minister did, by Fonargy, Ainsworth and Bell, and Sue Gerhardt herself, but, in the interests of making progress, I will not. We have made our point and I hope that the Minister will respond in equally sympathetic and empathetic terms.

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

I hope that I might be forgiven for believing that the hon. Gentleman had moved amendments Nos. 114 and 115 at the same time, having listened to the speeches.

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

The hon. Lady is forgiven.

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

That makes me feel so much better.

Obviously, a baby’s sense of self is incredibly important, but it is one part of the framework in “Birth to Three Matters”. That is why I hesitated to offer my support. I see that we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to how much detail we include. As has been mentioned, I am also enthusiastic about pursuing the implications of attachment theory and what we can do to overcome any problems in early emotional development. That is why I thought that we were considering the areas of learning and development.

I want to raise one point with the Minister about subsection (3). If I remember rightly, the list of areas of learning and development is the same as for the current foundation stage. I am not raising the same issue as I did about the word “taught”, but, thinking about nought to three-year-olds, I hesitated when I saw the word “literacy”. I thought hard about how a mother or a child care worker would look at books and work through the issues, but I remained faintly troubled about “literacy”. I did not have the time or the inclination to get out all my old books to see what literacy included, but it would be helpful if the Minister could address literacy in relation to nought to two-year-olds.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I will not repeat the points that I made in my response to the previous amendment. [Interruption.]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. We are finding out what this knocking noise is all about. People are looking concerned. We will have more information.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I was more startled by your intervention than by the knocking noise.

To respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s points, I have to say what he expected. A baby’s growing, and then differentiated, sense of self, if I can put it like that, is an important part of their development. It is included in the personal, social and emotional strand of development and, as he thought, is contained in the frameworks that we are bringing together for the foundation stage.

However, important as that is, I am not sure how one would judge a young child’s sense of self outside of what they do and how they behave, and “Birth to Three Matters” attempts to translate that for practitioners. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one strand of “Birth to Three Matters” is “A strong child”, which is very much about sense of self. Clearly it does not mean physically strong, but refers to a child with a strong sense of their own identity and the way in which they should interact with others. However, that must be translated into behaviour and practice, so under the heading “Developing Self-assurance”, the focus is on such things as becoming able to trust and rely on their own abilities, gaining self-assurance through a close relationship, and demonstrating that they are becoming confident in what they can do and are feeling self-assured and supported. Those strands are translated in “Birth to Three Matters” into effective practice that practitioners/carers must demonstrate if they are to inculcate in a young child the sense of self and the behaviour that comes from it. Carers must have clear and consistent expectations and must trust in a child’s ability. They must help the child to increase his self-confidence, feel valued and know that his efforts are appreciated. That is what we are doing now, and it will be carried through into the amalgamation of “Birth to Three Matters” with the early years foundation stage.

The areas of learning to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred are replicated in the foundation stage. As she rightly said, they are the strands of learning and development. Even more important than the definition is what those strands mean in practice for children’s behaviour and the learning and development that we want to see and what practitioners must do to support those strands.

I hope that, with those assurances, Opposition Members will be satisfied that the provision is important, is contained in what we already do and will continue to be so.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I am again grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I think that that detail will read well outside the Committee. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I shall certainly not repeat the debate that we have had, but I want to say why I still have concerns about the word “taught”. If there had been more time this morning, I would have said that teaching and learning are always bracketed together throughout key stages 1 and 2. Once more, I ask the Minister to reflect on the wording in subsection (2)(b), as I am convinced that it can be improved. I hope that she accepts that. Does subsection (4) refer to an affirmative order? That is important, should there be a change to what has been laid down for some considerable time.

I raised the principles behind the early years foundation stage on Second Reading. Thanks to the Minister, we now have an outline of the vision and some examples of the principles involved. They will probably be far more important than anything else that is said. I am concerned that because the two sets of principles are different—the stage is divided into two—it will be difficult to get one comprehensive set of principles that does not involve prescription but that is relevant to the whole age group.

Some interesting points have been made. For example, many providers will be pleased to have an emphasis on the outside as well as the inside environment. I assume that there will be a full consultation on the principles. It would be good to have a public seminar involving many people, as that is so important.

Still on the principles, I ask the Minister whether in that discussion—perhaps I am making my representation now—this matter could be addressed. The term “family background” is included in the vision and in what we have been getting so far, but I do not see the same mention of family as appears in “Birth to Three Matters”. Again, I do not have a prescriptive view about what format the family should take, but we should not separate parents and children when we discuss child development. We must consider the whole family unit, and I would be heartened to see that picked up.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I noted the hon. Lady’s reference to key stages 1 and 2, but it is not relevant to imply that there is a parallel between the foundation stage and key stages 1 and 2 in terms of methodology. We have made that point throughout.

The hon. Lady is right: key stages 1 and 2 begin a more formalised process of learning. It is not very formal, but it is more formalised. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been at pains to give evidence from current practice and the documents that the Government have provided that the early years foundation stage—“Birth to Three Matters” and the current foundation stage—is not about formal learning processes. Because we are being specific in putting forward a rational and coherent concept around learning and development, which is what the areas of learning identified in the clause are—they attempt to conceptualise learning and development in a way that is not new, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, as that is done in the foundation stage already—it does not mean that the experience of children in settings as they go about activities that will contribute to those areas of learning will be formalised. It will not. It will be as now: informal, but a mixture of practitioner or teacher-guided activity and free activity.

The practitioner will take a robust and coherent approach both to observing what individual children do and how it relates to their level of ability in those areas of learning and development, and to thinking about the next steps and opportunities that will take that young child in a play-based way through the next stages of development that they have demonstrated an ability to attempt. To ask practitioners to use a coherent framework rationally and systematically is not the same as saying that we want the child’s experience to be structured in the way in which the hon. Lady fears. I hope that I have managed to reassure her a little about that.

The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and as I have repeatedly said, the early years foundation stage will be subject to extensive consultation. As with everything that has been done so far, not only do we want to use the experience of experts and practitioners, we want to take them with us. Consultation will be extensive and genuine.

Clause 45 - Power to enable exemptions to be conferred

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

I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 22, leave out line 25.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 234, in page 22, leave out line 30.

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

These two amendments were put forward by a group of child care experts. They are probing amendments on matters about which people would like clarification from the Minister. They propose that certain lines should be left out of the Bill, and I am sure that by justifying why they should be left in, the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what their significance is.

The National Children’s Bureau and the Early Childhood Forum are concerned that groups of providers could be exempt from the need to meet the learning and development requirements. They say:

“Our experience indicates that as this is a national framework, all providers should be expected to work towards it and that settings will not improve in quality if there are whole classes of exemptions allowed. This also has implications for the training of early years providers.”

The second amendment in this group is significant because those same groups are concerned that the Bill might mean that severely disabled children, for example, could be taken out of the equation. Their question is: should not this framework be a challenge for all?

I can understand why the exemption was used for the previous foundation stage. Blind children were exempted from handwriting tests. That seems perfectly reasonable, but I seek clarification from the Government about the circumstances in which they envisage this provision being used. I would not want a general bracketing with a child with specific disabilities. It would be a lot easier to exempt them but I do not think that the Government are trying to take the easy option as far as children with disabilities are concerned, and that is not what the Minister is committed to doing. A clarification would be helpful for all of us.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

This is an important clause. As we have stressed, the point of the early years foundation stage, and the new regulatory and inspection framework that supports it, is quality. The bringing together of the existing frameworks is crucial to deliver high-quality outcomes for children. As a result, all schools and registered providers, other than those exempted under the clause, will be required to deliver the early years foundation stage. For the first time, regardless of what setting they attend, that will ensure that all children receive high-quality, integrated education and care provision.

Initially for some individual providers this may be challenging. The exemptions power in subsection (1) will enable, on an exceptional basis, the Secretary of State to exempt providers from having to deliver all aspects of the foundation stage. Such exemptions would be made only in exceptional circumstances: for example, on a time-limited basis during which period we would expect local authorities to use their powers under clause 13 to support providers in improving the quality of their practice and to give them training so that they are able to deliver the foundation stage.

We do not want to use that power to exempt providers for a long period of time or indefinitely to exclude them from the general direction of travel, because it is all a matter of quality. However, there may be circumstances in which an individual provider could be released from all the requirements for a period under close observation and with support from the local authority to allow it to come up to the right standard.

Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting providers to disapply some of the learning and development requirements for a particular child, which would depend on particular circumstances. It would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than a category one. The benchmark for us would be what was in the best interests of an individual child.

However, as we take forward the development of the early years foundation stage, we must ensure that we can provide for human rights implications and the rights of parents to ensure that—within appropriate boundaries—their children are cared for in accordance with their own philosophies and beliefs. Subsection (2) provides this flexibility to be able to take account of specific circumstances, philosophies or parental values.

We have to have this flexibility in the Bill to take account of some of those exceptional circumstances, but I reassure the hon. Lady that we regard any exemption as being exceptional and mostly for a time-limited period to enable people to reach the ability to deliver the early years foundation stage in full. For the reasons I have outlined, we need the power to have that flexibility in the Bill.

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

I thank the Minister. She really did cover my concerns thoroughly in that response. I was quite pleased that the local authority’s role and quality were acknowledged. I think that we exchanged looks at that point. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 1 - Amendments relating to the curriculum

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 53, line 9, leave out ‘“maintained nursery school” ’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 154 and 170.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

These three Government amendments are wholly technical. Amendments Nos. 153 and 170 ensure that the definition of maintained nursery schools in section 76 of the Education Act 2002 is retained, as there are still references to maintained nursery schools in that Act. Amendment No. 154 is needed to clarify the wording of paragraph 9. The words “ceases to have effect” are unnecessary.

Clause 48 - Inspections

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 23, line 18, after ‘prescribed’, insert

‘, but which should not be less than 3 years,’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 23, line 39, leave out from beginning until ‘an’.

No. 205, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—

‘(af)an order under section 48,’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment No. 27 relates to subsection (2)(a), which says that the chief inspector of schools

“must at such intervals as may be prescribed inspect early years provision”.

The amendment suggests that there should be not less than three years between inspections.

It is important that the inspections are frequent, perhaps even more often than every three years, but certainly not less often. There tends to be quite a high turnover of staff in early years provision. As a consequence, the quality of the care provided could change quite a lot and rapidly in those three years.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that. If she cannot accept the amendment, perhaps she will assure the Committee that the regulations that ultimately emerge will prescribe a period and that it will be of that order.

Amendment No. 205 applies to clause 98, which introduces the affirmative resolution procedures to certain specified order-making clauses. The amendment would apply the affirmative resolution procedure to clause 48, which seems to have four different order-making powers—quite a lot for one clause. Subsection (2)(a) gives the power to prescribe intervals at which inspections should be made, which we have just discussed; subsection (3) relates to regulations to prescribe circumstances in which the chief inspector is not required to inspect early years provision; and subsection (4) deals with regulations that can prescribe the regulatory regime of early years provision at independent schools.

As all those regulation-making powers relate to important issues, Opposition Members believe that they should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause covers the inspection of early years provision. Subsection (2)(a) requires the chief inspector to undertake inspections at prescribed intervals, creating a regular cycle of inspections of all providers. Subsection (2)(b) requires the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at the request of the Secretary of State, and subsection (2)(c) allows the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at other times if he considers it appropriate. That gives him the flexibility that he needs to deal with numerous types of consequences and sets of circumstances that he may face.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about what he thought amendment No. 27 meant. The way in which it is worded means that the minimum interval that could be set between regular inspections is three years. He appeared to suggest—he will intervene and tell me if I have got this wrong—that he quite liked the idea of inspections taking place more regularly than that, but that a regular period should be prescribed. That was his main point. I could not quite discern whether he wants inspections to take place no more regularly than every three years, which would be the effect of the amendment. If so, he would be changing the current legislation from prescribing a maximum period of three years to prescribing a minimum period of three years. That may or may not be what he intended, but it did not seem to be what he was arguing.

If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is that the inspections take place at regular intervals and that that is specified in the regulations, I assure him that that is what we intend to do. One of the impacts of the amendment would be to remove the chief inspector’s flexibility to inspect more regularly if necessary, using the regular cycle of inspections and duties under subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c). I am not convinced from what he said that that was the intention behind his amendment. It is a bit brain twisting if he considers it carefully. [Interruption.] Yes, it is something to do with neurons and synapses. [Interruption.] I have no comment on when or if they are attached.

The clause allows us the flexibility to reorganise inspection cycles without changing primary legislation. For example, it might be sensible to ensure that inspections of child care on school sites form part of the school inspection. It may therefore be sensible to have a minimum of slightly less than three years between those inspections in a particular instance in respect of a particular school. Given that we want to keep the burden of inspections to a minimum commensurate with safety and safeguarding, we would not want to prevent the inspector from being able to use his flexible good sense in a reasonable manner to make that kind of judgment in any individual case. Amendment No. 27 would have that effect, but I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have been baffled by the Minister’s comments and I thought that perhaps I had got my double negatives in a twist, but I just noticed that there are two versions of the amendment. There is a version dated 13 December, which says that the intervals are

“not to exceed 3 years”,

which is what I was talking about, and then there is a version dated 15 December, which says that the intervals

“should not be less than 3 years”.

I am baffled about why there are two versions. The earlier one is correct, not the later version.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am advised that there may have been a printing change.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Where does that leave us?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We will take further advice, but we will have to deal with the amendment as it stands.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am glad to see that the synapses of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are clearly in fine working order. [Interruption.] Here I am, doing my best to be kind to him and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tries to take all the credit. I suppose that that is the way these things sometimes work. I have no doubt that we will clear it up.

However, given the confusion, and given what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out as his aim, the current wording does the job. There will be consultation on the regulations. There will be plenty of opportunity for him or anybody else who is interested to make representations about what the interval should be. He will have noted that it is three years for schools, and therefore we are probably not too far apart, in practice.

Amendment No. 205 would require that regulations in respect of early years inspections and the treatment of independent schools be approved by both Houses before they come into force. Of course we need to take seriously the need to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We had a bit of a debate this morning on whether the negative or affirmative resolution procedure is the right one in various cases. Without repeating too much of what I said, there are provisions for orders to be made under both the affirmative and the negative resolution procedures for different proposed regulations. The way in which we choose which one to use for each power is in line with current practice across the House and across legislation.

The most important regulations—those that are most likely to have the biggest impact on how the early years foundation stage and other parts of the Bill are implemented—are, of course, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but the type of regulation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is normally subject to an order under the negative resolution procedure. Such orders are laid on the Table of the House, and it is perfectly open to any Member to pray against the order and bring about a fuller debate.

I hope that I have convinced and reassured the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this instance.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

It appears that there is a discrepancy in the wording of the amendments. We shall take further advice as the Committee develops to find out exactly how it happened.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. I suspect that the blame lies somewhere in my court, but I am not sure.

Whatever the explanation is, the intention of the amendment that we should have been debating was that the interval should not exceed three years. I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the substantive point, and that she will take on board representations when the regulations are drafted, as it is important that inspections are regular—certainly not less regular than inspections of schools—given the problems that many child care providers have with staff turnover and, indeed, the importance of the quality of child care. It is important that schools have high-quality teaching and raise standards, but there is a particular sensitivity in respect of young children. We must ensure that they are looked after in a safe environment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 23, line 19, after ‘applies’, insert

‘using appropriately and qualified staff’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 285, in page 23, line 25, at end insert—

‘(d)must ensure that such inspections are carried out by inspectors who are qualified and experienced in early years provision.’.

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

As I have said all along, quality must run through the whole package—quality in terms of the sufficiency and the early years foundation stage creating a framework for delivery of a quality curriculum, or whatever word we want to use for it. That must be backed up by qualified staff but, equally, the inspection process is important. Several people who work in the sector have expressed concerns about the quality and consistency of inspections of early years facilities. As we move into the new phase, it is important to ensure that the inspection is of the highest possible quality across the board. Although I imagine that the Minister might say that it is inappropriate to put that amount of detail in the Bill, which I accept, I want her to address the problem to ensure that we take forward all aspects of early years provision, including the quality of the inspectorate.

Although I wrote the amendments, I have a briefing that was provided by the Early Childhood Forum. Its experts say:

“It is imperative that OfSTED inspectors have the expertise and understanding of the range of early years philosophies in order to complete the 3 year cycle inspection”.

The briefing continues:

“Inspectors also need robust training on the Disability Discrimination Act and the amended Race Relations Act. It is also vital that those inspecting on the new framework particularly in schools have an in depth knowledge and understanding of children’s development”.

On Second Reading I asked: when there is an inspection in the context of a school, will the inspector be an early years specialist? I asked that without knowing the answer. As we move forward, the answer will be important. The ages of three to five are inspected within the whole framework, but with early years, it becomes even more important to have an early years background among the team of inspectors.

The Early Childhood Forum points out that the early outcomes framework, which was published only in September, has a number of targets and indicators. It is used by inspectors through joint area reviews. The forum says:

“For young children under the outcome of ‘education, training and recreation’, the aim is that the child is ‘ready for school’.”

We might agree that that should be one objective, but it is rather narrow. All members of the forum are concerned about that. The briefing says:

“They”—

the members—

“feel that it is an impoverished outcome for the quality of experiences that children have engaged in since birth, and that using this term as the summation of those experiences is far from ideal.”

My example illustrates that we must get right the inspection process as well as the other processes. Inspection processes are developing in all sorts of service provision and best practice must be emerging.

The amendments pose questions to which I should like some answers. I also want some reassurance that just as with all other aspects of the Bill, there will be a developmental process with regard to inspection.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

To come clean on the disparity about the amendment, the Committee has probably realised that there has been quite a turnover of Clerks. We shall not make a great fuss about what has gone on. It will all come out in the wash.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is important that the inspectors are qualified in early years child care and infant care. Child care experts, such as OXPIP, to which we have talked and to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, have raised their concerns about the type of inspectors who will carry out the inspections. They believe that the inspectors need to be experts in infant mental health and to have good skills, including observation skills. They say that a secure attachment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is vital in the first two years of a child’s life. Therefore, an early years inspector looks for different things than a school inspector.

Early years inspectors need to ensure, for example, that a key worker is attached to each child. They should look at the way in which staff greet parents and children at the start of the day, how they help the child’s transition from parent to nursery, how they deal with the separation issue when the child leaves the parent, and how they manage the children leaving the nursery at the end of the day. The inspectors should consider how the staff handle a child’s favourite toy. Do they simply bundle it away in a cupboard to prevent it from being lost or damaged, or ensure that the child has it safely throughout the session? They must take into account things such as the strength of the key worker role, support for the key worker in the day care provision and staff turnover. How would an inspector judge, for example, child care provision that appeared to countenance a lot of crying? Would they regard crying as an important part of a child’s emotional development or would they judge more highly a setting in which there was no noise at all? Experts say that crying among very young children is an important part of their emotional development: if there was no crying in a centre, that might be a problem rather than a sign of something good.

To assess such matters properly, an inspector must be qualified and experienced, particularly in secure attachment and infant mental health.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I understand why the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole tabled the amendments and made the points that she has. I do not disagree with anything that she said about the importance of the provision. She also recognised that the quality of Ofsted’s inspection work must develop continually.

The clause requires the chief inspector to carry out inspections of early years provision at regular intervals and gives him the flexibility to do so at any other time or when the Secretary of State requests. The amendments would place a statutory duty on the chief inspector to ensure that the inspection of early years provision was carried out by inspectors with specific early years qualifications and expertise.

We fully support the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure high-quality inspections and appropriately qualified staff. There is no doubt that, without a robust and professional inspection system, we will not be able to show that we have met the key objectives. Therefore, the inspection system is an essential part of raising standards in early years settings. It will enable us to demonstrate that we have done so and to see whether we have met the aspirations for outcomes that we debated on clause 1.

I am aware that Ofsted has devoted a good deal of time and effort to ensuring that its inspectors are trained and made aware of latest developments, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to it keeping up with theory and development in the field. All members of Ofsted’s staff who carry out early years inspections have now been trained to inspect against the Department’s “Birth to Three Matters” framework, which will be a key element of the early years foundation stage. However, that is not enough: there will have to be further training. Ofsted must ensure that it can meet the high standards required by the amendments. My Department will continue to work with Ofsted between now and 2008, when we expect the Bill to be fully implemented, and beyond, to make sure that its inspectors are sufficiently qualified and trained to do their new job.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rightly expected me to say that the Bill is perhaps not the place to be so specific about the qualifications. We do not wish to curtail the chief inspector’s ability to deploy staff as he sees fit, with his knowledge of their good and bad points. However, we agree with the sentiments and intention behind the amendment. The discussion has been worth while and I hope that she feels reassured.

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

I thank the Minister for her comments. Yes, I do feel reassured. I cannot overestimate how important this strand is. We are discussing a continuum. As we progress to having a graduate in every children’s centre, it will be right that the inspectors have at least equivalent qualifications, which is not always the case at present. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 49 - Report of inspections

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 24, line 8, after ‘children’, insert ‘and parents’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in page 24, line 9, leave out ‘in connection with’ and insert ‘which directs’.

No. 274, in page 24, line 10, at end insert—

‘(1A)The report written under subsection (1) must not include a grade or mark relating to the provision inspected, either overall or for separate elements.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Amendment No. 57 probes the extent to which child care is also meant to assist parents, and whether that ought to be an aspect of the report. We discussed the importance of child care for working parents, which the report should reflect. Amendment No. 58 makes a semantic point about the focus of leadership and management.

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

Amendment No. 274 is another one of the “nots” that I am endeavouring to put into the Bill. The very fact that the Government have two “nots” in clause 41 shows that there is value in not being too prescriptive. Obviously, adding the amendment would be reassuring. As the newspaper articles that I referred to were, in fact, in The Guardian, I was surprised that Labour Members, as well as some Opposition Members, suggested that they were from the tabloids. That was the problem: the quality press made the Bill the main story the day after its launch.

The amendment would ensure that we do not start getting league tables of any sort. That does not mean that Ofsted reports should not be published and made fully accessible, but things develop as part of the desire to drive up standards. That would be incredibly undesirable in this sector.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that parents’ needs are taken into account and reported on in the report that inspectors produce after they complete an inspection. I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that to ensure that a particular setting properly meets the needs of children, and that it is delivering the early years foundation stage and adhering to the principles behind it, providers will have to establish good relationships with parents. As we know, parents are the single most important factor, for better or worse, in determining outcomes for children. Therefore, practitioners will need to work with parents to ensure that children’s needs are met.

The hon. Gentleman repeated some of the comments that I made about practitioners and parents building relationships, how that determines and shapes the experience of the child, how the child should be handed over from one adult to another at the beginning of the day and how the child sees that there is a relationship—all of that is important. However, the early years foundation stage is about ensuring that children’s needs are met and that their well-being is promoted. Although the active involvement of parents is integral to that, the early years foundation stage itself is not about meeting parents’ needs, which is how subsection (1)(c) would be phrased with the amendment. I hope that he will accept that the chief inspector should not be required to report on whether parents’ needs are being met, although he will need to report on the extent to which practitioners involve parents in what is going on in the setting and whether relationships between practitioners and parents are strong and sound.

Amendment No. 58 concerns the extent to which the inspector reports on the quality of leadership and management, which is also important. Such reporting will include a number of factors, including staff deployment, morale, planning, organisation and the culture of the setting. Subsection (1)(d) is so worded to capture the variety of factors that could be considered to contribute to the quality of leadership and management. It also ensures that different models of early years provision can be taken into account. For instance, some settings are part of large national organisations, so we must ensure that inspectors can comment not simply on the leaders of individual settings, but on the extent to which any parent organisation, whether a voluntary organisation or a large private provider, is contributing to the quality of what is delivered.

Amendment No. 274 would prevent Ofsted from including a grade or an indication of grading in an inspection report. I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on that. I am sorry that she linked it—unhelpfully—to the idea of league tables, because it is not about league tables. She acknowledged that there is a well developed inspection practice across many fields, including probation, prisons, education and the health sector, and a considerable body of best practice. In none of those instances do inspectors ascribe a single benchmark—a pass or fail standard—as a result of their inspection.

The provision is predominately about parents and information for parents, so it is essential that in education and child care across the board there is a system whereby parents can understand where the setting in which their children are being cared for sits in the quality spectrum. We want everybody, ultimately, to reach the highest standards, but the process of getting there will involve different settings at different points, albeit above a broadly satisfactory standard. Parents must have that information.

The hon. Lady might know that Ofsted publishes its inspection reports on the website, which is very good. The number of visits to that website—more than 17,000 a day—shows the extent of interest in the performance of early years provision and schools by the parents who use them.

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

I should perhaps qualify my remarks. I said that it was important for parents to read the Ofsted report. Transparency, openness and access to information are all important. Once we get down to a single mark or grade, people will be concerned that league tables might come into the frame.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We are certainly not talking about a single mark, as I think the hon. Lady knows. However, while parents can read inspection reports, they are not necessarily familiar with and expert in the way in which Ofsted inspectors assess and judge the criteria that enable them to come to a conclusion about a setting. Parents should have a simple yardstick to enable them to interpret the detailed findings in a report.

The hon. Lady knows that the grades are satisfactory, good or outstanding, and that there are two grades for settings that are judged to be inadequate. Both those grades have different implications for the speed and frequency with which Ofsted carries out return visits and requires the instigation of an improvement programme.

That is quite important information for parents to have and I should not like Ofsted to move to a simple grading of satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Our focus should be on parents and not on some misguided attempt to neutralise the impact of inspections by reducing the grading simply to satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Parents want to know more. The grading system is simple; it is not over-complicated. It serves its purpose and, for parents, it is important that we retain it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reasons for rejecting the amendment. I am convinced by much of what she has to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—

‘(da)must post a copy of the report on the Ofsted website,’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 24, line 19, leave out ‘he considers appropriate’ and insert

‘which will increase accessibility to the report’.

No. 286, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—

‘(e)may make arrangements for the report to be discussed with the registered person.’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment requires Ofsted to publish all its reports, except for the sensitive material, on its website. As the Minister said, that is where the reports are published. The amendment merely seeks to include that requirement in the Bill. We had a debate about ensuring that all parents and prospective parents have the widest possible amount of information. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Ofsted report is probably the most useful piece of information when a parent is trying to determine whether they feel comfortable putting their trust in a particular child care provider.

Amendment No. 60 would alter subsection (2)(d), which states that the chief inspector

“may arrange for the report ... to be ... published in any manner he considers appropriate”.

The amendment states that the report should be published in a manner

“which will increase accessibility to the report”.

It is important that as many parents and prospective parents as possible are made aware of the reports and encouraged to look at them before forming a view on which child care provider to take their children to. As we do more to disseminate and publicise the fact that these reports are on the website and available to be seen, we will find that a much wider cross-section of parents use the information, which is all to the good. I await the Minister’s response.

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

I agree with the sentiments of the Conservative amendments, although I do not know whether they are necessary.

I have to confess to ignorance in case the Minister tells me that what I propose in amendment No. 286 already happens. I do not think that it does, but I am not 100 per cent. sure. The amendment says “may” not “must”, which is a good start. When there is a school inspection, the team of inspectors returns and discusses the report, usually with the governors and senior members of staff. I imagine that it would be impractical always to do that with the many nursery and day care inspections, but I would have thought that face-to-face feedback from the inspector could serve a useful purpose in the same way that it does in a school. This is a probing amendment, because I am not too sure of my ground, but I think that what I am saying is desirable. I wait to hear the response.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I hope that I can assure Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary because what they try to achieve is already in place.

On amendment No. 29, I said that the inspection reports are on the website and freely available. The number of visits that I cited suggests that parents are well aware of that and take the opportunity to visit the website and read them. Perhaps I should say that there may be some instances when it is not appropriate to publish a particular report on the website. The obvious example is when registered child care is provided in a women’s refuge and the need for the whereabouts of that setting to remain confidential is paramount.

I agree with the sentiments behind amendment No. 60. Parental involvement in the inspection process and their access to information are important. It is the practice of Ofsted to send a copy of the inspection report automatically and without charge to all parents of children attending a child care setting. For parents whose children are already at the setting, they receive a copy of the report; for other parents who seek information, the website is the point of access.

On amendment No. 286, the process will be similar to that which Ofsted adopts at a school. It will inspect a child care setting. When the inspection has finished, it will discuss its general and detailed findings with the providers and staff in the setting, and then write its report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole accepts that although the discussion is important—not least to track any factual errors—Ofsted needs to reserve the right to write its report and come to the judgment that it thinks fit. If, after the report is received, there are issues about the improvement that is deemed necessary, as there is in some cases, there would be a further exchange between Ofsted and the provider.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Given the Minister’s assurance that the Ofsted reports relating to early years provision will be and will continue to be placed on the website, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 51 - Requirement to register: later years childminders for children under eight

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 25, line 18, leave out ‘it appears’ and insert ‘the evidence demonstrates’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 62, in page 25, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment seeks to sharpen up the wording of the clause to ensure that when the chief inspector of schools intends to issue an enforcement notice on a child care provider because they are providing child care without having registered, the enforcement is based on evidence, not just whether it appears that someone is providing child care.

Amendment No. 62 therefore changes “may” to “must”. The amendments go together. If the evidence demonstrates that somebody is providing child care and they are not registered, the chief inspector must issue an enforcement notice that the child care provider should desist, or that the child care provider should be registered.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the amendments sharpen up the provisions. They certainly change the action that Ofsted would have to take when it thinks that a child minder is operating without registration. The amendments seek to change the processes that Ofsted would follow.

To clarify matters for Committee members, a person acts as a child minder if they care for a child who is not a relative for reward for periods exceeding two hours a day. When Ofsted receives a complaint that somebody is acting as a child minder without registration, it will usually try first to contact the person to establish whether that is the case. Often, people are simply unaware of the requirement to be registered, and when they are contacted, they will either cease operating or apply for registration. When it appears that there is an issue, Ofsted, where appropriate, likes to offer individuals the chance to register if they wish to do so.

If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman’s “must” rather than “may”, a matter on which we have had a few debates today, Ofsted would have to dive straight in, close down the setting and stop the person doing any child minding. Although in certain circumstances that might be exactly the right thing to do, it would not be possible for us to argue that it always would be.

Of course, Ofsted needs to balance the potential difficulty and danger of allowing a child minder to continue without proper registration against the use of immediate enforcement to prevent the child minder from looking after those children. That is why Ofsted tends to observe settings to decide how best to proceed. One might refer to that as evidence, but “evidence” has a very legalistic interpretation and we might end up in a situation where we need written statements and all sorts of things that would stand up as evidence in court.

There is no doubt that Ofsted will, in practice, balance the suspicion—it might have been brought to its attention by way of a complaint—that there is a breach of the requirement to register against a determination of whether it is such a serious matter that it has to close down the setting immediately or make the individual apply to register.

It is right to give Ofsted the discretion to do that and it has made the nature of its normal process quite clear. In its August 2004 report, it said:

“When Ofsted becomes aware of a person who may be operating illegally, the first step we take is to write to them to tell them an allegation has been made”—

it does not say by whom. It goes on:

“The letter makes sure they understand the legal requirement that they should register if they are providing childcare which is covered by regulation. It also explains the benefits of training, support and guidance that come with being registered, and how to apply for registration. If necessary, Ofsted continues to investigate the allegation.”

In a small number of cases, where there is ongoing evidence that individuals are providing unregistered care and not taking steps to regularise their position, it issues an enforcement notice. The report continues:

“This notice is a legally binding letter valid for 12 months and ensures that the person carrying out the illegal care knows that it is an offence to do so. If a person continues to care for children while such a letter is in force, they can be prosecuted.”

That is a well-known process giving inspectors sufficient leeway to ensure that they are not diving in and prosecuting people who have inadvertently not got it right, which would also put an end to child care availability as well. They must use their discretion and professionalism to get the balance right. I fear that the amendments might take away that flexibility in such instances and we would not be in favour of that.

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wish to improve the quality and sharpness of the legislation, he might create one or two potential consequences he did not expect when he tabled the amendment. With that explanation of what happens in practice, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to leave the wording as it is and seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I should like to advise the Committee of the result of the investigations concerning the confusion over the amendment. I am delighted to advise the Committee that it was not the fault of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and nor was it the fault of our excellent Clerk. We have checked every correction sent to the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote and found that no one authorised the change. It was an editorial error.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am relieved to hear that I have been exonerated, Mr. Amess.

Regarding the Minister’s response on the amendments, I would like to think that an Ofsted inspector would have evidence for anything they do or any judgment they make, even if it were not of High Court quality. The Minister set out in great detail the very thorough procedures that lead an inspector to issue an enforcement notice, which was very helpful. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 52 - Requirement to register: other later years providers for children under eight

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, line 5, leave out from ‘made’ to ‘and’ in line 6 and insert

‘or approved by the proprietor of the school’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 244, in page 26, line 6, after ‘school’, insert

‘who is approved by the proprietor of the school.’

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

These two amendments try to bring into the exceptions from having to register later years child minding—the situation where the child minding is provided by a school, so it would not be required to be registered is one such exception—the situation where the child care is provided by a third-party child minder but within the school premises and approved by the proprietor of the school. Will the Minister consider whether that should also be included in the list of exceptions?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman says, where a provision on a school site is provided directly by the governing body—the proprietor—it will come within the province of Ofsted’s general inspection of the education facilities on the site. However, as he rightly says, there will be occasions when responsibility for that provision on a school site using school premises may not lie clearly with the school. Therefore, it will not be picked up in the inspection process, because it is not being provided directly by the governing body. It will be provided through a contract with a third party, using some of the school’s rooms or facilities, but with no accountability direct to the governing body. That is the key point.

In such situations and to ensure that provision complies with agreed criteria and children are safe, non-school providers, if I may call them that for a moment, must be required to register with the new Ofsted child care register that we have discussed. Therefore, when schools look after children under eight, even if they do so on school premises, under agreement with the school but not directly by it—

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I was explaining that where schools directly, through the governing body, provide child care on their own site, they will come under the auspices of the school inspection, but where they contract with other providers, those providers must register with the Ofsted child care register. That will enable us to ensure that all the care assessed through an extended school is of a consistent standard. We also plan to issue guidance, so that schools should link only with private and voluntary providers of child care for children over eight that are registered with Ofsted.

Those arrangements will help schools, which will be able to contract with providers in the knowledge that Ofsted has checked their suitability, as they will already be registered with the Ofsted child care register. There is then no need for schools to go through that process when they are considering contracting with a certain organisation. I believe that that is the best arrangement for parents, schools and providers, and I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister has been helpful in providing clarity about the position regarding a third-party provider of child minding in a school. She makes a compelling case for that provision to continue to be inspected by Ofsted. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 53 - Applications for registration: later years childminders