Clause 33 - Requirement to register: early years childminders
Childcare Bill
6:45 pm
David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 34, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 284, in clause 34, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
No. 123, in clause 51, page 25, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
No. 124, in clause 52, page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 202, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
‘(ac)an order under section 33,’.
No. 203, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
‘(ad)an order under section 34,’.
No. 206, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert
‘(ag)an order under section 51,’.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
The principle that I shall talk about in relation to amendment No. 121 also applies to amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 17 in relation to clauses 51, 52 and 34 respectively.
Amendment No. 121 would remove subsection (2) from clause 33. That subsection gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to enable a child minder to carry on child minding while not being on the register. Before the relevant document was circulated, I could not envisage any circumstances in which that would happen, particularly given the importance of regulating child minding. However, the note sent by the Minister sets out a range of types of provision that will be exempted. I am not sure what status the piece of paper has, but it sets out a large number of reasons why a child minder would not need to be registered and could carry on child minding without being on the register.
The paper talks, for example, about child-minding provision that operates for less than two hours a day or on fewer than six days a year. It says that nannies and babysitters should be exempted. However, those are exempted under existing legislation. The list goes on to talk about child minding provided between 6 pm and 2 am, which means babysitting, either in the child’s home or other domestic premises. Also on the list are babysitting in hotels; crèches that enable parents to go shopping or engage in sporting activities; and activity-based provision, such as that which involves drama, dance, arts and crafts and sport, where the child is looked after while the activities take place.
I am reassured by the piece of paper circulated last night about what the exemptions are all about, but why does the Minister feel that the broad provision in the Bill is necessary? Why does she not incorporate those specific exemptions in the Bill or in regulation? She could have published that at the same time as the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 relate to regulations under what will be sections 33, 34 and 51. These simple amendments would ensure that any such regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure.
Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
I am glad that, having seen the note that we circulated, which reflects the current position and how we apply it in the light of the new arrangements in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has accepted both the principle of exemption and that the examples that we have included are—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he does not accept the principle. I must have misunderstood him; I thought that he was saying he was reassured by what he had read in the note and that the exemptions were reasonable. The principle is important.
With regard to exemptions, we are talking about situations, which, were they not exempted, would be required to go through the whole panoply of registration and inspection by Ofsted. They would be required to deliver the early-years framework if caring was for children under five.
The situations that we have defined—where provision operates for less than two hours a day, or on fewer than six days a year, or where nannies and babysitters are caring for children in their own homes—reflect the fact that there is part of the arena of child care that is within the province of parents. I have heard the argument put by Conservative Members on many occasions that within the more private and domestic sphere, parents themselves have a responsibility and a duty to satisfy themselves with the care that they leave their children within. It is not the case that every single situation, however brief and for whatever purpose, could or should be regulated by Government. There must be an appropriate balance. That is why the power to exempt is in the clause, and the paper that we circulated last night gives some indication about the situations that we would seek to exempt.
I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be disproportionate to require that settings in which children are looked after for such short periods, or in their own home, should be registered. At present, Ofsted has to decide whether a particular provision counts as child care and therefore needs to be registered, and that is often a difficult decision for Ofsted to make. Care does not happen in isolation: care and early education happen simultaneously. However, at present, care is required to be registered and education is not. When older children play football at an after-school club, is that child care that needs to be registered, or is it activity-based provision, which does not? The Bill’s new approach will take away that grey area about what is or is not required to be registered. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured by the paper that we circulated.
Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 would constrain our ability to adjust the Bill to meet the needs of changing times. They would require exemption orders to be approved by both Houses before they came into force. We take seriously the need for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, but for the exceptions, the arrangements that we are proposing are proportionate and satisfactory. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Of course the Bill does not clarify the grey area, or it would not be necessary to include the list of activities not covered by the requirement to register activities. It would be absurd for a babysitter or a nanny, or the chap who looks after children playing football on a Saturday morning, to have to register. We agree with the Minister on that. Perhaps the legislation should be drafted so that it does not include those activities in the first place. If that is not possible, it would be better if that were incorporated either on the face of the Bill to make it clear that the activities are not covered by the requirement to register, or by regulation published now with the Bill to make it absolutely clear. That would remove the grey areas. The matter has been aired, and we have it on the record that those activities are not meant to be registrable child-minding activities, which I think is helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.