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

The clause is short and I want to probe its meaning. I hate clauses such as this that give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to change his or her mind at a whim, but at least the clause is subject to an affirmative motion of the House, if I understand correctly the reference in clause 98, which refers specifically to clause 5. It takes a little working out.

Why would the Secretary of State want to change the definition of early childhood services? It is not one little part of what we are talking about; it is virtually all of it. Will the Minister give us some examples of why and in what circumstances she envisages the Secretary of State wanting to redefine the whole subject?

I hate such phrases as

“make such other amendments ... as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.”

Again, that seems to give the Secretary of State enormous powers. We have had long debates on the details, but we seem to be changing the assumptions on which those debates were based. Will the Minister give some examples of why the clause is necessary and what is likely to be achieved by it that is not out of keeping with the aims and objectives that we have already debated?

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I support what my hon. Friend said about this catch-all clause. In many respects, it could undermine the Bill that we are debating. Things could change dramatically.

I ask for clarification. The clause states that the Secretary of State may

“amend the definition of ‘early childhood services’”.

Does it mean only services, or could it be extended to the provision of goods and assets? We need clarification of what “services” means in this context.

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

I shall preface my comments by saying that the first five clauses are important to the “Every Child Matters” programme. In practice, their combined effect is to give Sure Start services statutory underpinning, with statutory guidance explaining how the duties are to be achieved through the children’s centre way of working. It is important to appreciate that.

Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to alter by order the definition of “early childhood services” in clause 2 and, if necessary, to make consequential changes to the relevant partners who have to work together under clause 4. We recognise the potential importance of such changes. Clause 98 therefore requires that any order made under clause 5 is made by affirmative resolution. That will allow Parliament a full opportunity to debate such changes.

Clause 2 defines “early childhood services” for the purposes of clause 3 and sets out how those services must be delivered. Those services must be integrated, they must reach out to excluded families and they must involve parents and providers. The clause focuses on those key services relating to young children, parents and prospective parents that are essential to delivering the Sure Start children’s centre model. The model is for parents, from the moment they know that they are expecting a baby; it will give them a coherent pattern of child health, integrated child care and education, family support services, some free at the point of delivery and some subsidised according to income. We are defining those services because research has shown that they are vital to improving outcomes, which is at the heart of part 1.

We obviously do not have any plans to use the power to make changes, but we recognise that we may need to amend, remove or add to the services to which the clauses apply. Having the power to do so will give us the flexibility to recognise and respond to the changing needs of families over time.

The hon. Gentleman asked for some examples. Changes may be needed for a variety of reasons: to reflect new policies, alterations in how services are configured, or legal changes. For example, emerging research or evidence of best practice might require us to refine or take a different approach to child care and early childhood services. We want to create a framework in which it is possible to respond, with appropriate safeguards through an affirmative procedure, to any emerging issues.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

One of my concerns is about the suggestion that there may be an opportunity for the Government to redefine early childhood services. Local authorities will be reticent about putting in the investment to provide them, in case suddenly at some point in the future—the Minister said that there are no plans at the moment—the goalposts are moved.

My concern is that the measure will hinder rather than help the provision and improvement of early childhood services, because there will be an uncertainty in the minds of local authorities, particularly given the concerns expressed in the original debate about the lack of additional funding to provide the services. It is a real concern, as local authorities will hold back to find out whether changes come forward in future months.

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

I am not sure about the hon. Lady’s comments about additional funding. The massive new funding from this Government during the past seven years has marked a significant change from the situation before 1997. We have made a commitment to continue it, and that is why we are able to bring forward those proposals.

As I said, we do not envisage any changes, but it is right to allow for the framework that we are defining not to be massively changed, but to be refined in light of any emerging evidence. Given the Government’s history and commitment to this area, it is not our intention massively to change the framework.

Another example is that there might be changes in the organisation of Departments. Although we have specified in the Bill two other big public service organisations along with local authorities, we might need to refine that later to reflect other changes in departmental structures.

We may need to incorporate other pieces of legislation into the framework in the Bill. With emerging evidence and research about what is best practice for children, and departmental and legislative changes, it would be sensible for the Bill to include a facility that meant that those changes could be made flexibly but with the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament.

We accept the starting point of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Putney (Justine Greening). We would not want to make changes unless they were absolutely necessary. Changes could be significant, and they should at least be debated and decided by Parliament. That is why we have proposed the affirmative procedure.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

Will the Minister remind the Committee about the Standing Orders for such a parliamentary debate, and how long each House of Parliament would have to debate the significant changes about which she talks?

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

It is some time since I took part in such a debate, but from recollection I think that it takes an hour and a half. That is the convention, as I remember it. I am not sure about whether there is any flexibility; I am not a Committee Clerk.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

I did not raise the point to test the Minister’s knowledge of Standing Orders, because I am sure that she is significantly more knowledgeable than I am about those issues, but to quiz her about whether she thinks the procedure allows a significant amount of time to debate the issue. We spent considerably more time than that debating clauses 1 to 4 on Tuesday. In all honesty, does she feel that that is sufficient time to debate significant changes to the purpose of the legislation?

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

Those are really matters for the House, rather than for me. I am constrained by the rules of the House and the conventions in these matters. The decision that the hon. Gentleman has to make is not whether the time for a debate under the affirmative procedure is long enough, nor is it a matter of not being prepared to agree with the proposals if he feels that the time is not long enough. The decision is whether—given the pioneering legislation that hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge that we are making—it is sensible to have a provision with the proper safeguards to enable us to reflect further emerging knowledge in an area in which our understanding of what helps young children to develop has accelerated very much over recent years. Should we have a provision that enables us to continue to reflect any emerging evidence and changes in our legislation? I propose that we should.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

The Minister’s comments concern me. The original definition of early childhood services in clause 2 is very broad. It refers to what aspects of services will be brought together under a local authority and to the broad provision of services. The Minister’s comments suggest that potential changes in the future could be far more prescriptive and could be top-down changes from national Government. It concerns me that, although I am happy with things in their current form, in the future there could be a far more top-down, prescriptive approach to nursery and early childhood services provision in local areas, when what may be wanted is a far more flexible, grass-roots way of meeting needs. I thought that that was what the Bill was about.

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

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has recently arrived in the House, but when we are making legislation, we must ensure that we do so in ways that reflect the law that is already in place. That is what the list in clause 2 does. Similarly, if there were any amendments, we would have to ensure that the changes were consistent with current or even—I made this point—emerging legislation that has not yet been passed, but which may be passed and which may be germane to the Bill. It seems only sensible to have a provision that, with the proper scrutiny, enables us to take future changes into account to ensure that they are incorporated in our aspirations for young children.