Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

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

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

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

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

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

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

‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

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

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

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

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

‘as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

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

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

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

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

‘, as he reasonably thinks fit.’.

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

‘(ai)an order under section 58,’.

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

‘(al)an order under section 66,’.

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

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

Clause 38 allows the chief inspector to

“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”

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

“impose such conditions as he thinks fit”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minister does not accept it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

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