David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Good morning. Please dress comfortably. If anyone wishes to remove their jacket, please do so and if anyone is unhappy with the arrangements, please let me know quietly.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Childcare Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 6th December) meet—

(a)at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th December;

(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 8th December;

(c)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;

(d)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 15th December;

(e)at 9.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December;

(f)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 21; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 22 to 30; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 31 to 47; Schedule 1; Clauses 48 to 95; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 96; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 97 to 104; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January.

We are pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. In your authoritative, but friendly, start to the sitting, you have given us a flavour of how you will help us to take forward our business efficiently. I look forward to that and I have no doubt that Mr. Benton will chair the proceedings equally well.

I open the sitting with a strong sense of quiet satisfaction and achievement, and some pride. As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is the first ever Bill that is devoted specifically to early years and child care. The Committee has a genuine opportunity permanently to transform the shape, quality and availability of early years services to our youngest children and their parents. I welcome the support and consensus that were reflected on Second Reading. I am particularly glad of the opportunity to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, which is what it deserves and demands. The programme motion gives us sufficient time to do that. It has no knives, but I hope that we can make reasonable progress to enable us to do justice to the debate that we need to have on all measures.

I am pleased that I am sharing my role in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I also have a superlative collection of Labour Back Benchers behind me, all of whom have demonstrated their long-standing commitment to this agenda for our youngest children.   I see on the Opposition Benches Members and colleagues of equal standing, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is developing a deserved reputation for expertise on these issues, having served on the Committee on the Children Act 2004. I welcome the chance to hear from him and I look forward to our deliberations.

The programme motion is a sensible attempt to ensure that all the major provisions are debated and I hope that the Committee accepts it.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I reiterate what the Minister said about welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. This is the not the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, which was fair and entertaining—I am sure that things will be no different in our proceedings over the next few weeks. I mirror the Minister’s comments and welcome the superlative team on the Opposition Benches, two of whom we are holding in store until a little later this morning, when they will appear. I am also grateful for the Minister’s comments about my developing a deserved reputation, as she put it. That will no doubt be terminated at 3 o’clock this afternoon—we shall wait and see what happens when the leadership of my party changes.

I welcome the Bill. We supported it on Second Reading, when we had a good debate that was informative and well informed. I am sure that many hon. Members who spoke in it who are represented on the Committee will contribute to the worthwhile scrutiny of the Bill.

I will set out some of the things that we want to scrutinise, relating my comments to the motion before us and how much time we will spend on such matters. I am pleased and grateful that the Government have given us three weeks in Committee and have not specified any knives—as is the colloquial term. It became clear when we debated Children Bills in Committee that when we deal with pioneering legislation in particular—as we are—it is important that we have as much time as possible to explore new areas. The same goes for this Bill.

Although we support the Bill’s general principles and thrust, we are concerned about the lack of detail. I also notice that along with the many amendments that we have tabled, the Government have tabled some amendments. Will the Minister produce additional explanatory notes to go with those and any future Government amendments? Such notes would be useful, particularly when we need a briefing on detailed and complex matters before their discussion in Committee.

On Second Reading I asked whether the Minister intends to produce draft regulations or codes of practice in Committee. Much of the Bill relies on as yet unpublished regulations. It would enrich our deliberations greatly if we had some detail—not in finished form, which is why I suggest draft regulations, at least—so that we knew about some of the measures that we are signing up to, particularly in those areas that are left to regulation by the Secretary of State.

One such area appears in clause 1, which is why I hope that we shall spend some time on it. Subsection (3) refers to the Secretary of State prescribing targets. The clause goes on to say:

“In performing their duties under this section, an English local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”

Clause 5 gives a wide-ranging power to the Secretary of State. She may by order amend the definition of early childhood services. That goes to the root of the Bill, so it would be useful if, in these early stages of our deliberations, the Minister could provide us with much more detail about the powers that she expects the Secretary of State to take upon herself if we pass the legislation in its current form.

We want to scrutinise the detail in clause 1, particularly with regard to the duties of local authorities. That is why the first component of the Bill is important. We need assurances from the Minister about what exactly child care providers—a large business in this country—can expect from the legislation now and as it unravels in the coming years. That must be made clear.

We must know what obligations local authorities can expect. Terms such as “reasonably practical” and providing “sufficient” child care must be defined much more closely, so that we know whether a duty has been achieved and, indeed, whether it is achievable. If it is not achievable by a local authority, we must know what the penalties on it or any of its partners might amount to.

There are also considerations about children with disabilities and children from black and minority ethnic communities. We should like to see more detail in the Bill. We must know how a duty will be assessed, and whether it will work; and when it will be assessed, and whether it is working. One of our watchwords is “quality”, which as far as I can see does not appear in the Bill, or certainly does not appear in its initial provisions.

I welcome the Minister mentioning “quality” as an integral part of the Bill. It is no good just ticking the boxes and assessing whether its aims have been achieved by the number of child care places provided if the quality of those leaves a lot to be desired. We shall judge its effectiveness on the quality of the outcomes that it achieves.

We are concerned also about the capability of local authorities to carry out many of the provisions. We shall ask for further detail about that. I was involved in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, just a few months ago, the Children Act 2004, as the Minister said. Those pieces of legislation placed, and are still placing, because not all provisions have come into effect, greater duties on local authorities to promote adoption and provide adoption support services. There are new proceedings for care, making adoption orders and dealing with the adoption and adoption contact registers.

The 2004 Act recently introduced new structures for local authorities: directors of children’s services, working with partners, and local safeguarding children boards. Many of the new bodies that are being   set up and the new duties on private fostering arrangements, data collection and so on have not come into force and local authorities are still wrestling with how they will deal with them. I hope that they will be successful. My party supported most of those initiatives, which are intended to improve the welfare and outcomes for children, but we are now about to place a new load of responsibilities and duties on local authorities. We must be assured that they can cope with them.

One point that the Secretary of State made on Second Reading was that the Bill places no unfunded duties on local authorities. We do not understand how that can be the case. It is imperative that local authorities go along with the Bill and that they can enact it. There are questions not just about financial resources but also about providing the people. As with the 2002 and 2004 Acts, all the wise words that we may debate here, and all the extra specifications that may come as part of the legislation, will be undermined if there are not professional people on the ground to put them into force.

We know about the great gaps in personnel, particularly child protection social workers and people who provide early years child care services. We want assurances from the Minister as we go through the clauses that the measures are achievable and that local authorities can cope with the enormous duties that are being placed on them, which, by and large, they have welcomed. However, they want detailed answers to some questions. We want to spend a large part of the Committee’s time on early stages, the relationship with local authorities and how the measures will be brought into being, as local authorities are key to that.

On part 2, no Conservative Member who represents a Welsh seat is serving on the Committee, although we could have had someone this time. That has not been possible previously for reasons that you know, Mr. Amess. However, our Welsh colleagues, who are being used in other places, will advise us.

Many clauses in part 3 deal with the functions of the chief inspector. Again, we should like some detail from the Minister. We have particular concerns about the splitting of the register—there are now two—and how they will operate concurrently, how children of different age groups will be dealt with, the registration of early years child minders and the involvement of Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The debate will be timely, as CSCI is short lived. The intention is that it should become part of the Health Care Commission—an even bigger leviathan—so we need some assurances that CSCI’s successor will be able to perform the undertakings that it is given in the Bill.

We should like to spend some time on clause 39 onwards. Those clauses deal with the early years foundation stage. We had some lively debate on that on Second Reading. Again, while there is a great deal of common ground between the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve and what we would like to be achieved, we have concerns about language and terminology—more importantly, how the Bill will be interpreted by the local authorities and   inspectorates that will be responsible for monitoring whether the early years foundation stage requirements are met.

Many hon. Members summed up the requirements by referring to the word “taught” in clause 41, which we feel is far too educationally prescriptive. “Schoolification” is a horrible expression that has been used by one of the children’s bodies. The very early years, particularly, are about care and development, rather than the teaching of specific educationally biased requirements.

The Minister sought to give some reassurances. I hope that she will be able to go into greater detail than what is in “Birth to Three Matters”, which contains much material that we support and have supported. My concern is about how the requirements are interpreted by those people whose job it is to monitor whether things are being done properly. The difference between care and education is key, so we have tabled amendments to try to distinguish between infants aged nought to two, whom we refer to as babies, and those aged two to five, whom we refer to as young children.

The development of infants aged nought to two is absolutely key and different from what comes later. Some of us touched on attachment theory, brain development and physical development during those very early years. We shall seek to introduce differentiation into the Bill to recognise the different requirements, social skills and development of babies and very young children and, again, there may be some debate about the terminology.

That sets out how we would like to spend our time scrutinising the Bill and I hope that the Minister will allow us to concentrate on those areas. She has been generous in allowing us to consider the Bill without knives over the next few weeks and if we all get on like a house on fire, we might even finish before Christmas, but I will not predict that now.

I am sure that we are all greatly looking forward to reaching clause 101 which, for some reason, deals with the thorny issue of the Isles of Scilly. I do not understand why they are receiving special treatment, but perhaps the Minister will have a long briefing on why they are different from elsewhere in the world.

When I saw Government amendments to clause 104, which refers to the Bill’s short title, my ears pricked up. Whenever I have been involved with a child care Bill I have recommended that its title should be changed because there are too many Children Bills, which causes confusion. However, whenever I have tried to change the title, the Government have not acquiesced, but in this case, it is the Childcare Bill. The Minister said earlier that this is pioneering legislation and there are no previous child care Bills to create confusion so I am delighted not to have table amendments to clause 104. The Government, for technical reasons, seem to have beaten me to it.

Those are the areas on which we want to concentrate and I look forward to a constructive discussion. I am sure that there will be common interest and debate.   What really matters is the detail of what we achieve and whether it can be achieved by those who are in a position to put it into effect. If we can have such assurances and the detail that we need to show to local authorities, child care providers and other people involved in child care, we shall be happy to continue to support the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I, too, welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and look forward to the next few weeks. My hon. Friends and I also look forward to working with both Ministers and the official Opposition. I hope that the Committee’s approach will be co-operative so that we achieve the best outcome and, most importantly, a Bill that really delivers a difference. We have tabled many probing amendments, with probably more to come, because if there is vagueness and loopholes, we will not achieve what everyone wants. We share the Bill’s objectives.

I am slightly embarrassed about introducing my team this morning. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who served with me on the Children Bill and has great experience and expertise. He will make a great contribution when we discuss part 2, which covers Wales. We have had a change of personnel because we planned that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) would serve on the Committee, but the timing of a family event—twins are expected imminently—is incompatible with his presence here today, as it was yesterday when the House was discussing the Work and Families Bill. I am without a colleague this morning, but that will soon be remedied.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

I hope that the hon. Lady will let us know when the happy event occurs. As one of two, I know from my parents what a shock it was when it happened.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Under-Secretary for that intervention. Rather more to the point, we think that the time available to us will be adequate. I hope that it is. There is a responsibility on us to make the time work for us.

I concur with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—I mentioned this on Second Reading—in that I have a concern about the constant references to regulations, guidance and the powers of the Secretary of State, which, at this stage, we do not know enough about. I hope that, in the course of discussion, more will be revealed. I agree that we will be spending a lot of time considering the duties on local authorities. That is inevitable because, as I said earlier, we want to ensure that the words are translated into meaningful action.

As I indicated on Second Reading, we want to consider not only quantity, but quality. Inevitably that means that, as the Bill progresses, we need to consider the early years foundation stage. I am committed to the principles of that because it is a key to quality, but, nevertheless, we are concerned about some of the terminology. I have tabled some amendments—there   are some more to come—relating to what I call “nots” because tighter definition is needed. Once we have got that bit and the function of local authorities sorted, everything relating to inspection will be crucial. We will need to consider quality assurance, inspection processes and how to go for continuous improvement within the settings and the work force. This is the area, among all the others, in which we need to consider the continuous professional development of the work force. I hope that we will be able to touch on that important area as the Bill progresses.

My comments have been brief because, rather than repeating what was said on Second Reading, I would like to get on with the detail of the Bill. We certainly pledge to work as constructively as possible during the process.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I am grateful for those remarks from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) because they reflect the spirit in which all Members have come to the Committee. There is agreement on the direction of policy in the Bill and a commitment to young children and also on getting under the skin of some of the proposals to ensure that, as far as we can, the proposals are enacted and that when other people are charged with implementing them, they will work and deliver the policy objectives.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham describe the Bill as pioneering legislation. It is pioneering and significant. We are about to start discussing amendments to it, but, none the less, we have a commitment to reduce inequalities among young children by means of primary legislation.

I accept the point that such duties inevitably mean that a great deal of the detail will have to be included in regulations and guidance. I understand that Opposition Members want some assurances about the detail of that guidance and those regulations. I am sure that they agree that it would not be appropriate to include the level of detail that will be required in the Bill, so the Government have no option when it comes to proceeding in that way. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members and know that they want to see more detail. As we go through the Bill, where we can, we will bring forward outline guidance. In any case, all the guidance will be subject to detailed consultation with people outside this place. We will do our best to ensure that the Committee gets the assurances that it needs within the constraints of the three weeks available for debating the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about explanatory notes on Government amendments. When they are more than technical amendments, we will certainly provide explanatory notes in advance. There is a great deal of expertise as well as commitment on this Committee. I very much share with hon. Members on the Opposition Benches the view that the issues that they want to discuss are the key issues. It is important that we try to get them right. I thank those hon.   Members for their contributions, and I hope that we can accept the programme motion and proceed with our debate.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I should also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman Mr. Joe Benton and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.