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

I want to explore the issue of fees. Subsection (2)(c) states that any registration will be accompanied by a “prescribed fee”, but I have a general concern about regulatory bodies raising fees. It sounds reasonable that such a body should cover its costs or “wash its face”, to use the jargon. There is, however, no downward pressure on fees and no marketplace to ensure that they are kept under control and do not become unreasonable, yet we in the House of Commons tend to think that a regulatory body that covers its costs through fees must be run efficiently and that the costs of running it will not burden the taxpayer.

In essence, however, such fees are a form of taxation, because it is compulsory to register with the body set out in the Bill. There is no plethora of bodies from which to choose, so one cannot choose to register with the one with the lowest fee. This taxation rate is not, however, subject to the same deliberations as income tax rates or VAT rates; it is prescribed by the regulatory body itself, perhaps with a statutory instrument or some other form of regulation that is not scrutinised in great detail in the House. Provided that the body does no more than cover its costs, we are all meant to regard its behaviour as reasonable. However, the costs sometimes spiral out of control, because bodies empire build or employ more and more people   to carry out their functions. The costs are simply burdened on to the bodies that have to pay them, with no recourse to Parliament.

However worthy a regulatory burden is—in this case, it clearly is worthy—we should be careful about introducing a fee to cover the costs of regulatory bodies. There is an argument for saying—this is really a probing argument—that this is, perhaps, an issue for the general taxpayer. In that way, Ministers will keep control over the costs of such bodies and we will not build into our mindset the notion that because the fees cover the costs, they are not a matter for the Minister, the Department or the House of Commons.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I have a couple of questions about child protection in respect of the over-eights because I was not clear whether they were covered in the response that was given on clause 59. The clause referred to later years, but I was not clear whether that meant later earlier years—six to eight-year-olds—or the over-eights. Will the Minister explain how child protection standards will be maintained in provision for over-eights when providers choose not to register?

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

I hope that I can provide hon. Members with some reassurance. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) had a little flight of fantasy about ever-escalating costs. He appeared to overlook the fact that we are talking about a regulation-making power, as he himself mentioned. The fees are set in regulations, not by Ofsted, so there is no doubt that the House and Ministers will have a rather large say over what they should be. They will be able to scrutinise them as appropriate when the regulations are introduced and thereafter.

If I say a little about the current situation, it might give the hon. Gentleman some assurance that the fees are not about to escalate out of all reasonableness. Day care providers currently pay £121 to register with Ofsted and £94 annually thereafter. However, the registration costs are approximately £1,500, as are the inspection costs. Child minders pay £14 to register with Ofsted and £11 annually thereafter. The registration costs for them are approximately £750, as are the inspection costs. I hope, therefore, that he sees that they are heavily subsidised and that there is no question of the fees covering anything like the costs incurred in ensuring that the functions of registration and regulation are properly carried out so that people are reassured about, among other things, child protection and safeguarding.

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have read the regulatory impact assessment and will know that there is a working assumption that the fee will be £180 for day care providers. However, as there will be a review of fees next year which will inform the drafting of the regulations that will be put before the House, that is not exactly worked out yet. As registration is compulsory for some, there is no question of the fees being allowed to escalate out of all proportion so that we defeat the object of having registration in the first   place, which is to ensure that provision is safe and that those who leave their children in that setting can be assured of its safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about safeguarding for the over-eights, in relation to whom registration is not compulsory. I think she wants to know what assurance there will be of safety in those settings if registration is not compulsory and people do not register. She will no doubt intervene if I have misinterpreted her point.

Safeguarding is dealt with in many different ways across public services for children. It is not just a matter for those who provide a setting for child care or education; it is a much wider duty across public sector bodies that interact with children. Those who were on the Committee that considered the Children Act 2004 will recall that it extended the obligation to safeguard across a much wider range of public servants.

The requirements for Criminal Records Bureau checks have also been tightened. They are designed to ensure that safeguarding is taken much more seriously and is a greater part of the core business of all those who interact with children. We are preparing a safeguarding vulnerable groups Bill, which will implement the scheme suggested by Sir Michael Bichard, following the Soham murders, for barring and vetting jobs and functions that involve interaction with children.

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

Did not the original proposals that the Government put out for consultation contain a requirement to register in relation to the over-eights? Is not it only as result of the response to the consultation that the Minister and her Department decided to drop those proposals?

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

The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a consultation after which there was a change to what the Department and Ministers had originally planned, but that was in line with the representations in the consultation. It would not be fair to characterise that change as a way of making safeguarding less important or less central to the whole sector. There is no question of that. We must always have a balance between properly safeguarding children who are left in the care of others and ensuring that we do not impose such regulatory burdens that we drive potential providers out of the field. That is not always easy, and the Committee will understand that the way in which we go about it will differ according to whether those children are aged nought to five or over eight.

I hope that I can convince everybody who is concerned about the matter that safeguarding is a central part of the Department’s work; it is always kept in mind. Not only has the principle been applied to this Bill but it has been used to strengthen other legislation that is being rolled out now, and further legislation will come before this House in due course to provide additional safeguards through the barring and vetting scheme that we envisage. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and that the hon. Gentleman, having   heard what I have said about the fees and the current level of subsidy, will be content to allow clause 61 to stand part of the Bill.

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

It is incumbent on Ministers, when setting out arguments for doing or not doing something to say that that is what they are doing. I believe that the regulation for the over-eights was dropped as a consequence of the response to the original proposals in the consultation document.

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

The hon. Gentleman says that Ministers should make it clear why they dropped the requirement for the over-eights. There is currently no requirement anywhere for providers of care for over-eights to register or be inspected. We are enabling providers of care for children over eight voluntarily to register on the new Ofsted childcare register so that they can demonstrate their standards and make their provision eligible for the child care tax credit. That is a step in the other direction; we are not removing registration, we are enabling such providers to join the register if they wish to do so.

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

I understand that. I did not claim that regulations were being removed; I asserted that the original proposals for this Bill, which were consulted upon, set out that a regulatory regime would be imposed on the over-eights—

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

I must correct the record. We consulted on voluntary registration for non-child minding providers for children aged five to eight. There was never any proposal for compulsory registration for those who provide only for eights and over. We have extended the provision by enabling such people to register voluntarily with the OCR.

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

That is not my recollection of the consultation document. However, in view of that disagreement, I shall leave the point.

The figures cited by the Under-Secretary with regard to fees are not insubstantial. She trotted them out as though they were heavily subsidised, very minute, figures. Subsidised they might be, but minute they are not. We are considering a profession, not an industry that is full of high margins. A lot of the child minding providers struggle to make ends meet, and some might find it difficult to pay substantial registration fees.

We have to get away from the idea that because organisations can charge compulsory fees to those who have been regulated, we in this place do not need to worry about the public spending consequences of those fees, but can assume that the money will be raised from somewhere, so the costs do not need to concern the Chancellor or the public sector borrowing requirement. The costs of regulatory regimes such as this do need to worry us because they are a form of taxation.

The arguments have been aired, and I hope that the review of which the Minister has spoken will take them on board. I rest my case.