Clause 38 - Conditions on registration
Childcare Bill
9:15 am
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.