Childcare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 December 2005.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 54 - Applications for registration: other later years providers

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 27, line 29, at end insert

‘as the Chief Inspector reasonably thinks fit.’.

The amendment would provide Ofsted with some flexibility and discretion to make additions to the list of prescribed requirements that will apply if a child minder is to be registered. It would bring in Ofsted’s experience and expertise by enabling it to prescribe new requirements as circumstances develop.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s brief explanation of the purpose of the amendment. I have been tearing my hair out trying to work out what on earth it means. He has assisted me slightly, but he seems to be suggesting that the chief inspector has the capacity to make changes to the registration requirements, when that is of course a matter for regulation. The effect of the amendment is therefore unclear because the phrase

“the Chief Inspector reasonably thinks fit”

would suddenly be brought into a set of arrangements made by regulations. I am mystified about the effect the amendment would have.

If I were being kind—I feel that I ought to be this morning—I would say that the amendment was ambiguous, and as the Committee knows, ambiguity in legislation is never good. I agree with the import that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment places on the fact that when the chief inspector has discretion, he ought to have flexibility in the application of his powers. However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman has chosen the wrong clause for such an amendment.

In the spirit of Christmas and of making the legislation as clear as it can be, I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I can assure him, however, that we agree on providing the chief inspector with flexibility in exercising his judgment, which is of course always reasonable.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

In the spirit of Christmas, and in view of the Minister’s brief and succinct explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 56 - Special procedure for registered early years providers

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 28, line 18, leave out ‘wishes’ and insert ‘proposes’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 147.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

These are simply drafting amendments that will improve the clarity of the Bill by changing the word “wishes” to “proposes” because “proposes” is a more appropriate legal word—a reference to people proposing to provide child care.

Clause 58 - Regulations governing activities

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

Clause 58(3)(c) mentions “qualifications and training” but the question has been raised with all of us whether it should say “accredited qualifications”. Will the Minister comment?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am not convinced that including the term “accreditation” would add anything. It raises the question: accredited by whom? The clause deals with regulations governing activities, and the qualifications that are envisaged can be set out in the regulations. That will allow an opportunity to stipulate whether qualifications should be accredited and, if so, by whom. Rather than worry about accreditation within the Bill, we should recognise that it can be dealt with in the regulations. We shall consult as to the content of the regulations after the House has considered the Bill, and that will allow people with concerns about accreditation and appropriate qualifications to have input before and after the regulations are drafted.

Clause 59 - Inspections

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 30, line 5, at end insert—

‘(aa) must at such intervals as may be prescribed, but which should not be less than once every three years, inspect later years provision to which this section applies,’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 277, in page 30, line 8, after ‘inspection,’, insert

‘and not less than every three years commencing the day after registration’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment seeks to prescribe a minimum period of three years between inspections of later years childminding provision—and on this occasion we do mean a minimum, and not a maximum. The point is one of staff turnover and the importance of parents having trust in the provider, and I believe that it is reasonable to require an inspection at least every three years, as in schools.

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

Amendment No. 277 has exactly the same objective as amendment No. 41. It makes sense to put something like it in the Bill. We had a prolonged debate about wording, but I think that it is right and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The amendments would require all later year child care providers that are required to register with Ofsted to face compulsory inspection at least every three years. I agree that Ofsted plays an important role in assuring parents of the continuing quality of child care. However, we intend to make regulations requiring providers to demonstrate annually that they meet the requirements of the Ofsted child care register, and we think that that will ensure that safety and suitability standards continue to be met.

We are trying to strike the appropriate balance between safety, security and quality on the one hand, and a proportionate, risk-based inspection regime on the other. We have reviewed the role of inspection in delivering the best outcome for children. Ofsted will be able to inspect any providers who are on its child care register at any time, and will do so where there is concern or a complaint has been received, rather than on an automatic cycle.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

To whom will the child minder providers have to “demonstrate annually”, to use the Minister’s phrase, that they are still fulfilling the registration requirements?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Providers will have to demonstrate that to Ofsted every year. They will have to produce documentary and other evidence to establish that they are continuing to meet the registration requirements and Ofsted will review that information annually. That is a proportionate, risk-based approach. To inspect on a regular cycle would place a high cost and high burden on Ofsted, with no evidence of what benefits it would bring. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am concerned about the Minister’s response. The requirement to demonstrate annually to Ofsted appears to be a documentary one: forms will be filled in and documents photocopied and dispatched. It does not seem to require any evidence that the quality of the child minding is sufficiently high. The Minister also indicated that there will be no minimum period between inspections. It could be up to Ofsted to inspect once a decade.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Just for clarification, we are talking to Ofsted about the way in which the scheme will operate. Ofsted will undertake a proportion of inspections randomly of those compulsorily placed on its child care register, but not of every child minder on an automatic cycle. That combination of random sampling and inspections in response to concerns is proportionate to the risks related to child minders, against whom there are few complaints, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful for that intervention. I remain concerned, and the point is one that we will need to take up once the regulations are published. At that stage we can determine whether they need to be prayed against and a debate held to consider the issue more thoroughly.

My concern is that any state body naturally tends towards inertia—it is easier not to do something than to do something. That is particularly true when there are cost implications. Every inspection will cost Ofsted money, and it is under budget constraints. My suspicion is that it will be cheaper and easier not to do something than to be proactive. Unless a state body has a duty to do something, it will inevitably do less than is necessary to ensure that all child minders are inspected regularly. There is a risk that relying on random sampling and inspections when complaints arrive will make inspections less frequent than they ought to be. However, that is probably a debate for when the regulations are published, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 60 - Report of inspections

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 30, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in page 30, line 35, at end insert—

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

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The amendment raises a “may” or “must” issue. I was surprised to see the word “may” in the clause, which states that

“the Chief Inspector may make a report in writing”

following an inspection. That contrasts with the requirement that a report must be produced following inspections of early years provision. It is logical that if Ofsted carries out an inspection of a child minding provider, a report ought to follow. Will the Minister explain why a different approach is taken following an inspection of later years provision from that following early years provision?

I should add that amendment No. 43 would require any report written by Ofsted to be published on its website. We debated that point early in the Committee stage.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I have given the Committee an assurance that it is practice to post published reports on the website. I hope that that deals with his concern.

On amendment No. 42, the chief inspector should have flexibility to decide the right way to publish whatever is produced as a result of an inspection. An inspection visit may arise because of a complaint or concern expressed by a parent. In those circumstances, it is right that the chief inspector has flexibility to decide the most appropriate way to document the outcome of that inspection. For example, if the inspector found no cause for concern, producing a full inspection report in response would not be the right thing to do.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

But that argument could be applied to inspections for early years provision, or indeed to any inspection initiated by a complaint or a specific concern.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

An automatic cycle applies to situations in which the inspection regime is different, and we have said that reports arising from that cycle must be published. Such circumstances will always lead to inspection reports. In the situation that we are discussing, it might be more appropriate for the chief inspector to respond with a letter to a parent. If concerns were shown to be unfounded, I think that the inspector would take the view that it probably would not be right to post that on a website. We ought to give the chief inspector the flexibility to decide what is and is not appropriate to put in the public domain in response to different kinds of visits.

Ofsted and the chief inspector take their reputations very seriously. The chief inspector will make judgments about what parents and the general public ought to see. The presumption will be that things should generally be published, but in certain circumstances it might be more appropriate to provide the inspection results in a different form. It is right that we should allow the chief inspector that flexibility. That is the reason for the use of “may” instead of “must”.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I accept the Minister’s assurances on amendment No. 43 in relation to the publication of reports on the website. I am still slightly concerned about the absence of written reports on ad hoc inspections. That ties in with the lack of cyclical inspections, which we discussed earlier. The two are connected, so my disappointment about cyclical inspections leads to my disappointment about the lack of written reports. However, we live in a transparent era. The age in which Government bodies could conduct their activities without transparency or publication of their conclusions is gone, thank goodness.

I am persuaded by what the Minister said about responding to the concerns of particular parents. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate not to publish a full report and to deal with the complaint by correspondence. I am also reassured by her statement that there will be a presumption to publish. That is an important statement to put on the record. Ofsted must conduct itself with that presumption in mind. Given her reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 61 - Applications for registration on the general register: childminders

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to explore the issue of fees. Subsection (2)(c) states that any registration will be accompanied by a “prescribed fee”, but I have a general concern about regulatory bodies raising fees. It sounds reasonable that such a body should cover its costs or “wash its face”, to use the jargon. There is, however, no downward pressure on fees and no marketplace to ensure that they are kept under control and do not become unreasonable, yet we in the House of Commons tend to think that a regulatory body that covers its costs through fees must be run efficiently and that the costs of running it will not burden the taxpayer.

In essence, however, such fees are a form of taxation, because it is compulsory to register with the body set out in the Bill. There is no plethora of bodies from which to choose, so one cannot choose to register with the one with the lowest fee. This taxation rate is not, however, subject to the same deliberations as income tax rates or VAT rates; it is prescribed by the regulatory body itself, perhaps with a statutory instrument or some other form of regulation that is not scrutinised in great detail in the House. Provided that the body does no more than cover its costs, we are all meant to regard its behaviour as reasonable. However, the costs sometimes spiral out of control, because bodies empire build or employ more and more people to carry out their functions. The costs are simply burdened on to the bodies that have to pay them, with no recourse to Parliament.

However worthy a regulatory burden is—in this case, it clearly is worthy—we should be careful about introducing a fee to cover the costs of regulatory bodies. There is an argument for saying—this is really a probing argument—that this is, perhaps, an issue for the general taxpayer. In that way, Ministers will keep control over the costs of such bodies and we will not build into our mindset the notion that because the fees cover the costs, they are not a matter for the Minister, the Department or the House of Commons.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I have a couple of questions about child protection in respect of the over-eights because I was not clear whether they were covered in the response that was given on clause 59. The clause referred to later years, but I was not clear whether that meant later earlier years—six to eight-year-olds—or the over-eights. Will the Minister explain how child protection standards will be maintained in provision for over-eights when providers choose not to register?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope that I can provide hon. Members with some reassurance. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) had a little flight of fantasy about ever-escalating costs. He appeared to overlook the fact that we are talking about a regulation-making power, as he himself mentioned. The fees are set in regulations, not by Ofsted, so there is no doubt that the House and Ministers will have a rather large say over what they should be. They will be able to scrutinise them as appropriate when the regulations are introduced and thereafter.

If I say a little about the current situation, it might give the hon. Gentleman some assurance that the fees are not about to escalate out of all reasonableness. Day care providers currently pay £121 to register with Ofsted and £94 annually thereafter. However, the registration costs are approximately £1,500, as are the inspection costs. Child minders pay £14 to register with Ofsted and £11 annually thereafter. The registration costs for them are approximately £750, as are the inspection costs. I hope, therefore, that he sees that they are heavily subsidised and that there is no question of the fees covering anything like the costs incurred in ensuring that the functions of registration and regulation are properly carried out so that people are reassured about, among other things, child protection and safeguarding.

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have read the regulatory impact assessment and will know that there is a working assumption that the fee will be £180 for day care providers. However, as there will be a review of fees next year which will inform the drafting of the regulations that will be put before the House, that is not exactly worked out yet. As registration is compulsory for some, there is no question of the fees being allowed to escalate out of all proportion so that we defeat the object of having registration in the first place, which is to ensure that provision is safe and that those who leave their children in that setting can be assured of its safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about safeguarding for the over-eights, in relation to whom registration is not compulsory. I think she wants to know what assurance there will be of safety in those settings if registration is not compulsory and people do not register. She will no doubt intervene if I have misinterpreted her point.

Safeguarding is dealt with in many different ways across public services for children. It is not just a matter for those who provide a setting for child care or education; it is a much wider duty across public sector bodies that interact with children. Those who were on the Committee that considered the Children Act 2004 will recall that it extended the obligation to safeguard across a much wider range of public servants.

The requirements for Criminal Records Bureau checks have also been tightened. They are designed to ensure that safeguarding is taken much more seriously and is a greater part of the core business of all those who interact with children. We are preparing a safeguarding vulnerable groups Bill, which will implement the scheme suggested by Sir Michael Bichard, following the Soham murders, for barring and vetting jobs and functions that involve interaction with children.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Did not the original proposals that the Government put out for consultation contain a requirement to register in relation to the over-eights? Is not it only as result of the response to the consultation that the Minister and her Department decided to drop those proposals?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a consultation after which there was a change to what the Department and Ministers had originally planned, but that was in line with the representations in the consultation. It would not be fair to characterise that change as a way of making safeguarding less important or less central to the whole sector. There is no question of that. We must always have a balance between properly safeguarding children who are left in the care of others and ensuring that we do not impose such regulatory burdens that we drive potential providers out of the field. That is not always easy, and the Committee will understand that the way in which we go about it will differ according to whether those children are aged nought to five or over eight.

I hope that I can convince everybody who is concerned about the matter that safeguarding is a central part of the Department’s work; it is always kept in mind. Not only has the principle been applied to this Bill but it has been used to strengthen other legislation that is being rolled out now, and further legislation will come before this House in due course to provide additional safeguards through the barring and vetting scheme that we envisage. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and that the hon. Gentleman, having heard what I have said about the fees and the current level of subsidy, will be content to allow clause 61 to stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is incumbent on Ministers, when setting out arguments for doing or not doing something to say that that is what they are doing. I believe that the regulation for the over-eights was dropped as a consequence of the response to the original proposals in the consultation document.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers should make it clear why they dropped the requirement for the over-eights. There is currently no requirement anywhere for providers of care for over-eights to register or be inspected. We are enabling providers of care for children over eight voluntarily to register on the new Ofsted childcare register so that they can demonstrate their standards and make their provision eligible for the child care tax credit. That is a step in the other direction; we are not removing registration, we are enabling such providers to join the register if they wish to do so.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I understand that. I did not claim that regulations were being removed; I asserted that the original proposals for this Bill, which were consulted upon, set out that a regulatory regime would be imposed on the over-eights—

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I must correct the record. We consulted on voluntary registration for non-child minding providers for children aged five to eight. There was never any proposal for compulsory registration for those who provide only for eights and over. We have extended the provision by enabling such people to register voluntarily with the OCR.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is not my recollection of the consultation document. However, in view of that disagreement, I shall leave the point.

The figures cited by the Under-Secretary with regard to fees are not insubstantial. She trotted them out as though they were heavily subsidised, very minute, figures. Subsidised they might be, but minute they are not. We are considering a profession, not an industry that is full of high margins. A lot of the child minding providers struggle to make ends meet, and some might find it difficult to pay substantial registration fees.

We have to get away from the idea that because organisations can charge compulsory fees to those who have been regulated, we in this place do not need to worry about the public spending consequences of those fees, but can assume that the money will be raised from somewhere, so the costs do not need to concern the Chancellor or the public sector borrowing requirement. The costs of regulatory regimes such as this do need to worry us because they are a form of taxation.

The arguments have been aired, and I hope that the review of which the Minister has spoken will take them on board. I rest my case.

Clause 62 - Applications for registration on the general register: childminders

Clause 66 - Regulations governing activities

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 34, line 37, at end insert—

‘(8)The provisions of section 59 (inspections) and 60 (report on inspections) shall apply to persons registered under this Chapter.’.

This is a probing amendment. It would include in the Bill the inspection and reporting requirements of the later years child minding provisions for providers of child care who register voluntarily. If a provider registers voluntarily and informs parents that he or she is registered, the very fact of registration gives the impression that there is some quality assurance—something that the Minister hinted at earlier. If those who register voluntarily are to gain the benefits of registration, the consequences of registration, too, should follow.

The amendment follows the less stringent later years provisions as the model for registration and reporting requirements rather than the more stringent early years provisions.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would require all later years providers registered with Ofsted to face compulsory inspection, including those who register voluntarily. In that sense, it rehearses our arguments on clause 59.

Registration with Ofsted, whether compulsory or voluntary, will ensure that all providers have to meet the same specified standards and criteria. As I said earlier, they will need to demonstrate annually that they continue to meet safety and suitability standards. Indeed, many providers eligible for voluntary registration may be on the early years register because they care also for younger children, and as a result they will already be inspected by Ofsted.

Providers of care for five to eight-year-olds will be registered compulsorily, and providers for the over-eights will register voluntarily, but they will be registered under the Ofsted child care regime that I outlined earlier. It will not be a cycle of automatic inspection for later years provision, as it will be for those on the early years register, but it will include the proportionate inspection that I mentioned earlier; the inspector will able to inspect at any time, whenever concerns exist or complaints are made.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will not be a third tier of inspection for those registering voluntarily. They will experience the same level of oversight and have the same demands made of them as those who are compulsorily registered on the Ofsted child care register. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister. She has in effect assured us that registering voluntarily will still give rise to inspections by Ofsted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 77 - Requirement for consent to entry

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 42, line 35, at end insert—

‘()Subsection (2) does not prevent the imposition under section 38, 57 or 65 of a condition requiring a person registered under Chapter 2, 3 or 4 to secure that the occupier of any premises on which the registered person provides early years provision or later years provision gives any consent required by that subsection.’.

The amendment allows a condition to be placed on a person’s registration so that the occupier of the premises in which they work must give consent to entry. That applies where children are looked after in their own home or that of a friend or relative. Clause 77 requires that the chief inspector gain consent from the occupier before gaining entry to the premises. The amendment is needed so that the chief inspector may impose a condition on the registration that the registered person may not carry out child care in respect of those premises when they are registered as a child minder, or cancel the registration when they are registered in respect of the premises.

Our intention is simply to ensure that Ofsted can enter the premises to inspect the child care when necessary. The amendment will enable Ofsted to place a condition at registration to require that the applicant should inform the person who owns or occupies the premises that Ofsted may need to enter the premises and should secure the occupier’s consent to such entry prior to registration. That consent will have to be obtained in writing and shown to Ofsted as part of the registration process.

Clause 79 - Information to be included in annual reports

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

I beg to move amendment No. 287, in page 43, line 25, at end insert,

‘ ; and on progress on the professional development of those employed in childcare provision, including qualifications and income levels.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Requirement to complete accredited course in childminding practice—

‘A person applying to register as an early years or later years childminder shall be required to complete an accredited course in childminding practice before registration.’.

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

Although the wording of amendment No. 287 may not be perfect—I will protect my back before I start—I notice that the title of clause 79 is “Information to be included in annual reports”, so there can be no obvious rebuttal that we would be adding something that might not be appropriate to the Bill. The amendment is consistent with the line that I have taken throughout the Bill that we need to ensure quality at every stage. We have agreed that continuous professional development of the child care work force is crucial to obtaining the Bill’s objectives. Therefore, there should be a requirement in the clause, perhaps not as I have expressed it, that a section of the annual report should deal with the qualifications of staff. I am sure that the inspectors would be in a position to draw some conclusions from the reports that they make throughout the year. As the Minister has not yet accepted any amendments, I hope that this could be the one.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

In the Christmas spirit.

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

In the Christmas spirit. Given the consensus in the Committee about the need to monitor the professionalisation of the child care force, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

I am not sure why we are dealing with new clause 17 here, but I am grateful that we are dealing with it. Originally, it was tabled after clause 34, and I am not sure how it applies to clause 79. However, it is important. It is supported by several organisations, including the National Childminding Association, the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the Daycare Trust. The Minister might suggest that it would create an onerous requirement, but it has widespread support among providers and experts in the field. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will be interested in it, as pre-registration training is mandatory for child minders in Wales. Standard 12.4 of the Welsh Assembly Government—let us get that right—publication “National Minimum Standards for Child Minders” states:

“From 1 January 2003, the childminder has successfully completed a pre-registration course before registration.”

I am arguing for the requirement on an equality as well as a common-sense basis. The new clause would achieve the same in England as in Wales and ensure that in the future child minders are required to undertake further accredited training.

In recent years, the training and development of the child minding work force has been a credit to everybody concerned: local authorities, the Government, child minders and the NCA. Obviously, the pre-registration course could be part of the accumulation of units towards a full qualification, and that, of course, relates to the development of a professional child minding work force. The NCA’s experience is that most child minders in England already undertake accredited training as part of their induction as new child minders. The introduction to child minding practice, which is a level 1 qualification, encourages many of them to continue with further training in their later career.

The NCA believes that the new minimum requirement for training would not act as a barrier to people registering as child minders. We have discussed barriers, and I am mindful of them, but I believe that the new clause is totally in the spirit of what has been happening in the work force—the recent trends in qualifications and training for child minding—which is greatly to be commended.

I would like to make a point on the clause, as I do not believe that I will be able to raise it anywhere else in the Bill. I have referred to quality assurance on many occasions. In his reports on particular child care settings and providers, it may be fitting for the inspector to pick up on how many inspections involved settings where there is quality assurance.

In the original consultation before the Bill, a specific question was asked about whether funding should remain for Investors in Children. Although I have mentioned this several times, I have not had a commitment regarding what is happening to the recognised kite mark of Investors in Children. The responses have been published and there seems to be a great deal of support for the matter, but will the Minister comment on the future of quality assurance?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The fact that I have not yet accepted any amendments does not mean that I have disagreed with the hon. Lady. She has made some important points, as I have acknowledged. It is just that we tend to have thought of them already and believe that they are accommodated in the arrangements. In that sense, there has been a consensus on the important issues.

That is also the case in relation to amendment No. 287. The key phrase used by the hon. Lady was the need to monitor the professionalisation of the child care profession. I am with her four-square on the need to improve the level and quality of training and on the need to monitor it so that we know what is achieved. The Government have put a great deal in place to ensure that we go in the right direction. I have said several times that the quality outcomes and quality experience for children are fundamentally dependent on the experiences that they have every day in their child care settings, which depends on the training, experience and quality of staff.

Those objectives are indivisible, which is why we established the Children’s Workforce Development Council under Baroness Morris of Yardley and why we published the strategy for consultation, which we shall respond to shortly. It is why the Government have committed £125 million for each of the next two years to the transformation fund, which we will use to provide employers with incentives to improve the quality of their work force in a way that does not affect its affordability or its cost to parents.

The question is how we fulfil the need to monitor the professionalisation of the work force. What is the best way to do that? I cannot see how inspectors could include such information in their inspection reports, which they will complete in a cycle for early years providers and in an ad hoc way for later years providers. It would be very difficult to extract that data for those purposes. Perhaps I can reassure her by explaining what we are doing instead. We are carrying out regular surveys of child care and early years providers—in fact, one was published recently.

The surveys include details of the professional development of the child care work force, including levels of training, the qualifications achieved and pay levels. The details are collected and collated by the Department regularly using a survey of those providers, the aim of which is to provide data to help us to monitor—as the hon. Lady wants—progress of the child care work force and to provide valuable information to inform policy decisions. I hope I can reassure her that the system for data collection and the other measures under the Children’s Workforce Development Council are in place to advance and push for the progress that we want.

The new clause would make training mandatory for child minders prior to registration. The hon. Lady is correct: in Wales, child minders must have completed such a course before registration. In England, there is the same kind of course, but people have six months in which to complete it. We have made that provision so that there is no barrier and child minders do not have to complete the course before they are registered. There is a check. When Ofsted conducts the first inspection, it will check the child minder’s progress on that course. The inspection takes place within seven months of registration. The balance is better than in Wales. Child minders have to undertake a course, and they must have completed it before the first Ofsted inspection. However, we are not setting a hurdle for women—it is often women—who want to start their business and need the support of their local authority. With the authority, they can start the course, but they will not have to complete it before registration.

That provision strikes a better balance between ensuring that the training is done and enabling flexibility in the first six months. It means that training will not be an insuperable barrier to many people who want to start businesses. With great respect to the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), it is a better balance. I hope that she agrees.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the Investors in Children scheme. I am still considering it. Working with a major voluntary organisation, I hope to explore the possibility of a similar scheme—albeit sector-based and administered—to quality assure the quality assurance scheme. The original objectives of the Investors in Children scheme were better rationalisation and a kite mark that parents would recognise, because the scheme would reduce the proliferation of individual quality assurance schemes. Those objectives have not been achieved. It has not reduced the number of quality assurance schemes, nor has it become a widely recognised kite mark for parents to identify good quality provision.

Increasingly, parents look to Ofsted. However, I agree that there is value in the continuous improvement that a quality assurance scheme brings to professional training. There is a strong case for such a scheme having more credibility and recognition if it were administered by the sector. We are discussing that with one of the major children’s organisations.

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

I thank the Minister for her comments, particularly her last ones, because I have wanted to know the answer to that throughout our discussions. I am disappointed by her response to amendment No. 287. At various points, we have tried to change “may” to “must”, but throughout the Bill provides that requirements for registration “may” include qualifications and training. The inspector should consider that, and I am mindful of how much significance we place on Ofsted’s annual reports on main school periods in which there is often a specialist section on a matter of great concern to us. For example, special educational needs was a feature in the previous annual section report.

I want the annual reports on child care to be just as significant, if not more significant than the later years Ofsted reports, given the importance of early years as a foundation. I am a little unsatisfied because the amendment’s provisions would make a useful incorporation to the annual report. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 82 - General power to make information available

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—

‘()Regulations may require the Chief Inspector to provide prescribed information held by him in relation to persons registered under this Part to prescribed persons for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1).’.

I hope that the hon. Lady enjoys this. The amendment changes clause 82, which allows the chief inspector to make prescribed information about registered persons available to such persons and in such manner as he deems appropriate for the purpose of assisting parents in choosing a child care provider. The amendment changes the “may” in the clause to “must”. Although it is not the same as her amendment, I hope that she enjoys the fact that such an amendment has been tabled and that we accept the prospect of such a change.

To explain what may be seen as a bit of a volte-face by the Government, I assure the Committee that our reason for tabling the amendment is that Ofsted does not want to have to exercise discretion on whether to provide the information in certain circumstances. It wants a duty to do so, so that it will not get caught up in arguments with providers or be challenged about whether it should hand over information in certain circumstances.

The amendment gives us the power to make a regulation requiring Ofsted to hand over information. The provision relates to the passing of information to bodies such as the police and local authorities, and to parents, in certain circumstances. It is currently dealt with in the Child Minding and Day Care (Disclosure Functions) (England) Regulations 2004, but that needs to be re-enacted because of changes made by the Bill. The measure will contribute to the protection of children while ensuring that Ofsted does not get caught up in arguments about what it does.

Given what I said about “may” and “must” earlier, I hope that the hon. Lady enjoys the fact that she has, in a way, triumphed, even if the context is slightly different from that of her original amendment.

New Clause 4 - Procedure for making certain orders specifying learning and development requirements

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

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

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5—Determination of whether prescribed requirements for registration are satisfied.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The two new clauses deal with slightly different things. New clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative organisations and to provide all those with an interest in early years with an opportunity to make representations on the order specifying the early learning goals or educational programmes under clause 39(1)(a).

I hope that the new clause will be welcomed by members of the Committee and others with an interest in the matter. It is based on section 96 of the Education Act 2002, which sets out a similar process for the Secretary of State to follow when making certain orders and regulations in relation to the national curriculum, including the current foundation stage. It seemed sensible to have such an arrangement and a duty replicated as far as possible in respect of the development of the early years foundation stage. That is why we want to include the new clause. I hope that it will reassure hon. Members that the Government intend fully to consult those who have an interest. There has been a lot of interest in the early years foundation stage. I hope that the new clause provides an extra assurance that we intend to consult properly.

New clause 5 sets out that Ofsted may, if regulations so provide, deem a person to be unsuitable and to cancel or refuse registration when consent for third party checks is refused or withdrawn. That means that if Ofsted wants to check information from a third party which requires the consent of the individual seeking to be registered and that consent is refused or withdrawn, it need not look further but can, at that point, deem a person to be unsuitable and cancel or refuse the registration without having to go through the entire process to the end and have potential appeals. That retains the status quo. Without the provision, it is impossible for Ofsted to make decisions about the suitability of a person for registration if it cannot get hold of the third party information—for example, through Criminal Records Bureau checks—that it needs. In such cases, it seems sensible that Ofsted can refuse to register the person.

These matters were overlooked—I suppose that is the best way of putting it—during the complicated business of writing legislation to tight deadlines. With those explanations, I hope that the Committee will accept the new clauses.

New Clause 5 - Determination of whether prescribed requirements for registration are satisfied

New Clause 1 - Arrangements for childcare providers to safeguard and promote welfare of young children

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Arrangements for childcare providers to safeguard and promote welfare of older children—

‘(1)Each person and body to whom this part applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—

(a)their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and

(b)any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.

(2)Each person and body to whom this section applies must in discharging their duty under this section have regard to any guidance given to them for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

(3)In the case of a children’s services authority in England, the reference in subsection (1) to functions of the authority does not include functions to which section 175 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) applies.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I thought that I had better say something this morning, so I will have a go at new clause 1. Such is the strength and force of the new clause that, in your wisdom, Mr. Amess, you have also selected new clause 3 for consideration, which is identical. You have chosen not to select other new clauses, which I thought were really rather good and which are not identical. However, on that basis, we had probably better focus on new clause 1, because it would completely mess up the Bill if it were included twice—in the highly unlikely scenario that we get the Government to accept it.

The new clause deals with including welfare safeguards for children and for them to pertain to everyone involved in child care provision. In the dim and distant past, in the early stages of our consideration, we spoke about the requirements on local authorities to promote the welfare and well-being of children. We all agreed that that was essential, although we had different versions of how we thought that it could be achieved. New clause 1 is intended to place a duty on everyone who is affected by the Bill and particularly child care providers—everybody who comes into contact with children who access those services—to have regard to the welfare and well-being of the children themselves. As the Bill is phrased, those requirements are limited to the local authority, which is a weakness.

New clause 1, which would probably be inserted after clause 42 in part 3, would therefore place a requirement on everyone else to make arrangements to ensure that

“their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”.

That suggestion has been supported by several children’s charities, which welcome the requirements on early years providers to include the welfare requirements as specified in clause 43, although much of that relates to the provisions on administrative and more mechanical, practical matters. They recommend that there should be a requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for example, recommends that the Bill includes welfare requirements on later years providers for children under eight. It, too, believes that there should be a requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

In many respects, we want to replicate the sort of considerations that are integral to the Children Act 2004. Given your inside knowledge of that legislation, Mr. Amess, you will recall that section 11 sets out duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as they apply to a range of providers, including the children’s services authority of a local authority, district councils, strategic health councils, primary care trusts and other NHS trusts, police authorities and the probation board. Its purpose was to emphasise the fact that all of us have a duty to safeguard the welfare of children. None of those bodies is set out in the Bill, but in our discussions we have mentioned several different organisations and agencies that are affected and which will come into contact with children every day.

In order to replicate some of the safeguards for children in the 2004 Act, a welfare requirement should be placed on other parties so that everyone is mindful of, and has a duty to safeguard, the welfare and well-being of children as they come into contact with them. That is what the Act, which followed the Laming report, was all about.

The suggestion is straightforward and helpful. It adds to the Bill, especially to the joined-up approach that we have all agreed is essential when dealing with children and with vulnerable children in particular. Much of the Bill is, of course, aimed at more disadvantaged children from disadvantaged families who may be more vulnerable than others.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I also tabled new clauses 1 and 3. We are concerned that there is a requirement not only on local authorities, but on everyone who comes into contact with children to safeguard and promote their welfare.

When we discussed the 2004 Act in Committee, I tabled an amendment to the effect that examination boards should have that responsibility. We are not talking about examination boards now, but we did so then because of an unfortunate incident during a drama examination in a school in Wales. It was ruled out of order, but, like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I believe that a wider range of organisations should bear greater responsibility, so that the welfare of children and young people is safeguarded and promoted. My hon. Friend and I support the new clause for those reasons.

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

Hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Children Act 2004 may recall that we were concerned that schools were not picked out as individual bodies. Schools are particularly relevant, not only because they will—perhaps—be given greater independence but because their governing bodies have a great deal of power. We are talking about a considerable expansion of child care for all ages on school sites. We spoke the other day about the ability of governing bodies to decide whether to set up child care facilities. The Children Act covers only local authorities; it does not specifically mention schools.

The Minister might say that everything is covered by the Children Act and will therefore be carried across, but I want to reinforce the point that I made when that Act was being considered. We were very concerned about the fact that schools and their governing bodies were not specified in the legislation. Although they are particularly important in respect of child care, they are omitted from this Bill also.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments behind the amendments. It is crucial that we actively safeguard children who are in the care of a child care provider. They should be protected from harm and neglect.

Hon. Members will be aware that early years providers who are required to deliver the early years foundation stage are subject to the welfare requirements listed in clause 43. Clause 58 contains an identical list of requirements in relation to those who provide for later years children. The first item requires that the regulations will include specifics about the welfare of children and will deal with the suitability of people to care for them. Although hon. Members make the point about the Children Act, there is a crucial difference: the list in the Children Act concerns strategic bodies. However, there is a similar requirement in relation to schools in the Education Act 2002. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, any child care provision provided under the aegis of a local authority is subject to that authority’s safeguarding duty.

Because there appear to be inconsistencies in the provisions, if hon. Members are minded to withdraw their amendment I shall give the assurance that I will consider the issue and will return on Report with a view as to whether there is a gap that we must close by amending the Bill. The Children Act is concerned with strategic organisations, not, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, with individual providers, so I might return and say that I am satisfied. However, I feel that I should consider the issue. If the Committee is happy with that, I shall be happy to do it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Christmas spirit has broken out. This is the closest that we have come to the Government’s accepting something, or at least agreeing to consider it before they come back with a good reason for not accepting it—although they might have led us to believe that they might accept it because it is this side of Christmas and we are all feeling very charitable. On that basis, not wishing to throw back the Minister’s suggestion in her face, and in the expectation of seeing an even better and shiner new clause with the Government’s fingerprints all over it in the new year, I am happy to beg to seek leave of the Committee to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 11 - Requirement for providers of children to provide information

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

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

I am sure that the Minister knows that, as a result of a constituency case, I have been trying throughout the Bill to put some protection into the system without the need for more regulation. Something has to be done, given that there was nearly an horrendous incident in Poole town centre. It may be almost an obsession, but that is not to the detriment of the point that I am trying to make.

I suspect that the Minister will say that the new clause is too airy-fairy about the conditions under which such child care is provided. However, I want parents to be informed when they deposit their children with the provider of any form of child care, perhaps by a notice on the wall, that the carer is not regulated or registered. Parents should know exactly the terms under which children are being cared for.

In an open and competitive market, child care providers who are fully registered will automatically provide such information; it will be to their advantage to give parents the fullest encouragement to leave their children there. However, we have such a long list of exemptions that I believe that it would be right to require providers to tell parents, in some form or other, that they are exempted. They may also wish to say, “Nevertheless, all our staff have x, y and z qualifications.” It would be open to the provider to decide what additional information to give. That might be another safeguard to help deal with a situation that I have described many times before.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I was puzzling over the wording of the new clause when preparing for the debate. The hon. Lady uses the word “conditions”. Under the new clause, providers of early years child care would have to inform the parents of children in their care of the conditions under which the care was provided.

In the Bill, “conditions” has a particular meaning. It is used to describe the restrictions that can be placed upon carers in order for them to be registered. It may include requirements relating to the applicant, the premises or the care arrangements, including the hours of operation or the number and ages of the children cared for. It seems clear from what the hon. Lady said that that is not what she means. Introducing a different meaning to a word that already has a particular meaning would cause ambiguity, and I am sure that she does not seek that.

I agree with the hon. Lady that, when parents leave their children in the care of others, they will want to know that the children will be safe and well looked after and that certain standards will be met. Information about the conditions attached to the registration will enable parents to raise issues with the provider and even to make formal complaints to Ofsted should they see those conditions being breached or not being met.

The current regulations require Ofsted to issue a certificate of registration confirming that the provider has met the standards for registration. In addition to the name of the provider, the certificate has to contain the address at which the care is to be provided as well as any specific conditions—I intend the meaning in the Bill—that are applicable to the registration. Typically, those include the hours of opening and the number and age of children that can be cared for.

We will continue that requirement in the regulations to be made under the Bill. The new regulations to govern providers’ activities will also require that the certificate must be displayed for parents to see. That will go some way towards meeting the hon. Lady’s aims, although it will not deal with those who are not registered—who perhaps do not have to be registered. However, it will mean that that information will be displayed for parents to see. If it is not there, they will know that it is not a registered setting. In a sense, that meets the requirements that she seeks to make with her new clause. Despite having some sympathy with her reasoning and regarding the constituency case that she talked about, which has given rise to the new clause, the use of the word “conditions” makes the meaning so ambiguous that it would not be very sensible to accept the new clause. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the hon. Lady can see that we are going three quarters of the way to meeting the requirements that she seeks to place in the Bill and that she will therefore be happy not to press her new clause.

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

I have spoken a great deal about the training and professional development of child care workers. I am beginning to feel that Members of Parliament might need some training in the writing of new clauses and amendments. I wrote the new clause in—I hope—fairly clear English, and I did not anticipate that the wording would be perfect but I wanted to ensure that the matter was thoroughly discussed. I thank the Minister for her comments; both Ministers have been very understanding about the point that I have been trying to make about all the child care settings that are not registered and the fact that parents do not know that they are not registered. I am still deeply concerned about that, but I have received some reassurance. I got the greatest reassurance from when we were talking about the advice and information that local authorities will be required to give to parents; that will probably be the crucial area. I hope that this issue will be picked up in relevant regulations, so that that information is available for parents.

I anticipated that I would withdraw the motion because I tabled it simply to make this specific point, but I would like the Minister still to consider how parents will know about all the exemptions, and whether they will assume that there is more safeguarding of those settings in the Bill than there is. I am still concerned about the problem, but I have raised the issue in every relevant part of the Bill that I could find. I think that raising it in relation to the information that local authorities will give has been the most profitable such area. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Schedule 2 - Minor and consequential amendments

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 56, line 5, at end insert—

‘In section 105 of the Children Act 1989 (interpretation) in subsection (5A)(b) omit “England and”.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 156 to 169, 171 to 175, 151 and 152.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

This could take quite some time unless I speak quickly. I am happy to take any questions, but the amendments are minor and consequential drafting points, and none of them represent any change in policy. They are all to ensure that references are correct and that any legislative cross-referencing uses the appropriate wording. I could go through each of them, but if I assure the Committee that I will take any questions on any particular one, perhaps it is enough for me to leave it there.

Schedule 3 - Repeals

Clause 98 - Subordinate legislation: parliamentary control

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 49, line 24, at end insert—

‘(ab)regulations under section 7,’.

The amendment would make the regulation-making powers in clause 7 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 7 deals with the duty to secure prescribed early years provision free of charge. It allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulation the type and amount of provision and the age of children who should benefit from it. That is important. In effect, the regulations will determine the age from which free schooling and child care is given. It has important policy implications as well as important financial implications. It should therefore be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so that such issues can be properly debated in the House before the age at which children receive free child care is determined.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, clause 7 replaces and extends an existing duty on local authorities to secure sufficient nursery education for children of a prescribed age in their area. The aim is to allow the Secretary of State not only to prescribe the age at which children become eligible for the free entitlement, but progressively to extend that free entitlement in line with the commitments outlined in the 10-year child care strategy.

It is perplexing that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative process now. The regulation-making powers are not new and build on powers that the Secretary of State has had since 1998 for funded nursery education, which have operated successfully since then. I cannot see any need to change the current position; it is not about changing policy. We are all in agreement about the importance of continuing early years provision and extending it where we can, and so the age at which that becomes operative, and the amount of free provision, will be subject to progressive extension as resources allow. That is an administrative decision that will not change the fundamental policy of providing the free entitlement to young children and ensuring that we can go as far as we can in that direction.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister said that there will be a progressive extension as resources allow. One of the major functions of the House is to allocate resources as and when they are allowed to be allocated. It is disappointing that she has rejected the amendment, which would simply enable Members of Parliament to have a say in extending the age range. It may be that most Members agree with the Minister and the Government’s direction of policy, but it is not right for such decisions to be taken increasingly by Executive order or by regulations subject to the negative resolutions procedure. Those debates have been aired several times, given the huge number of regulatory powers in the Bill, and are increasingly being aired in other Standing Committees and in the House, so I see no purpose in delaying the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 104 - Short title and extent

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I did not want you, Mr. Amess, to whizz through the Bill thinking that we were not paying attention, so, for the record, I want to say how refreshing it is that for the first time in my experience of dealing with Bills to do with children the title is not the Children Bill. The Bill will, when it becomes the Childcare Act 2006, be easily distinguishable from all the other children’s legislation that the Government have introduced, which is constantly confused. I praise the Minister for her foresight in giving the Bill its title.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the title. As we said at the outset, it is the first Bill that has specifically focused on young children and child care, and it is right that the title should reflect its landmark status.

With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, may I take this opportunity—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The Minister can deal with that on a point of order.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I want to express my sincere thanks to you and Mr. Benton for the way in which you conducted the Committee proceedings. You kept us on the straight and narrow, with good humour and a helpful approach, as you displayed just now. That helped to create a good foundation for our deliberations.

I also thank Opposition Members for their penetrating and probing amendments, which have required us to think more clearly, deeply and quickly about what we intend. I hope that, for the most part—if not entirely—they have been satisfied with our responses, and at least satisfied that everyone was on the same side as far as the Bill’s objectives were concerned, although we may have had slight differences about the best ways of getting there.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friends for their forensic interventions and for constituency stories, which helped to colour the rather dry language in the Bill. Their interventions were always good natured. They have been a formidable team and have certainly been supportive, for which I thank them.

I should also like to thank the Whips. They have obviously conducted their negotiations in a fruitful fashion, which has helped us. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for her support.

Last but not least, I thank the Clerks who have assisted us and all the officials who have been involved with the Committee from time to time. I also thank my Bill team, without whom we would not have managed so well.

As we come to the end of the Committee stage of this pioneering and radical Bill, I once again thank you, Mr. Amess, and Mr. Benton. I wish hon. Members a happy Christmas and give them my best wishes for the new year.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I repeat the Minister’s great thanks to you and Mr. Benton for the excellent way in which you chaired the Committee. What a pleasure it has been to serve on it in the new spirit of concord ahead of the Christmas season.

I thank my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who was dragged kicking and screaming on to the Committee, but who has performed in no uncertain terms, as one would expect. I also thank the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who managed to arrange the timings in an excellent way. I note the debut performance by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who has already shown herself to be astute in child care matters and many other things relating to the House, and we look forward to great things to come. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) for bringing her experience to bear.

I also extend my thanks to Labour Members, and, in particularly, to compliment the Government Whip. As you will notice, Mr. Amess, we are in danger of finishing our proceedings before the nominated time. The Committee was conducted with no guillotine and no knives on the timing of clauses, which does not happen very often. As our proceedings have shown, leaving matters to proper debate and allowing hon. Members with an interest in them to choose how long to debate them does not mean that we use up all the time on peripheral arguments at the beginning; it merely means that we have greater freedom. The Committee has been an excellent example of how we can achieve proper debate and scrutiny of a Bill in good time, without the necessity for Government Whips to place extra requirements on us.

The Committee has been an innovatory experience for me. I have spent eight and a half years in this place, and this is the first Committee on which I have served in which Labour Back Benchers have been so engaged in the proceedings; it is certainly the first in which a Labour Back Bencher has actually sought to defy the Government Whip and abstain on a vote. We were worried when the hon. Member concerned did not appear at the nominated time this morning and thought that her mystery non-appearance was directly linked to the great courage that she had shown last Thursday. She may yet end up on the Committee that considers the Crossrail Bill as a reward for her boldness.

Even the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) has occasionally managed surgically to remove himself from his Blackberry to engage in debate and raise the standard of class war, which is apparently fashionable again in the Labour party, courtesy of the Deputy Prime Minister. We welcome seeing more of that.

I also thank the staff who worked on the Bill, in particularly the Clerk. At times, the way in which he grouped 30 amendments and a new clause together for discussion has defied brevity, but we managed to struggle through.

It is a shame that the Government have not accepted any of our amendments, not even the grammatical ones or the ubiquitous “musts” instead of “mays” and “shalls”. We will be in the dark about much of the Bill until the full regulations appear, but the Minister has been mindful of that criticism and has endeavoured to give us information whenever she could. However, we look forward to some Christmas presents in the new year.

I am grateful to the Minister, who said that we have penetrated and probed the Bill, but we have not been left as satisfied at the end of the exercise as we might have been. However, the new year will bring a fresh breeze from the Government, who may look more favourably on some of the amendments that we endeavoured to push through, with which they had to agree on principle, if not in word. I look forward to the final stages of the Bill in the House, and I hope that further accord will manifest itself in the Government admitting that we were right on more than one occasion.

In the meantime, I trust that everybody enjoys a very good Christmas and will reflect on the wisdom of the words from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

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

I reiterate those comments. On behalf of the Liberal Democrat team, I thank you, Mr. Amess, and Mr. Benton for chairing the Committee and for helping us to make remarkable progress in our scrutiny. I should like to thank all officials, particularly those with whom I came into contact. They advised on tabling amendments, which was very helpful.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I am pleased that, although there were only two of us, we provided some Welsh input. We now all know that there is a distinction between the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government. His contribution was invaluable.

I thank both Ministers. We had good and interesting discussions, and nothing was dismissed out of hand without serious consideration and an answer on which we could reflect, which I particularly appreciated. There will be plenty of reflecting over the new year.

I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the vast number of details that will, inevitably, be picked up in the regulations. Obviously, we are concerned about that, but we are pleased with the assurances that have been placed on the record as a result of our probing.

I thank everyone who has participated in our proceedings. The Committee has been stimulating. At first, it was a shock to the system to see Labour Members participating with such vigour. It was good to have that continuity, as it made a real difference. It is off-putting to an Opposition Member who is sincerely trying to make points if everybody else just reads their mail and signs letters. It makes a big difference when there is real engagement, and I am sure that it helps to improve the Bill. I wish everybody a happy Christmas and a happy new year, and I look forward to the next stage of the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I thank all hon. Members for their kind and generous remarks. Mr. Benton and I have thoroughly enjoyed chairing the Committee, not least because of the way in which hon. Members conducted themselves. The Bill has been properly scrutinised, and it has been done with a good sense of humour.

I thank all those who looked after us throughout our proceedings. They diligently attended to all our various requirements. In particular, I thank the team of Clerks, who provided us with invaluable information.

Finally, I wish to extend wishes to everyone for a very happy Christmas, for good health, peace and prosperity, and for a happy new year.