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

I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 49, line 24, at end insert—

‘(ab)regulations under section 7,’.

The amendment would make the regulation-making powers in clause 7 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 7 deals with the duty to secure prescribed early years provision free of charge. It allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulation the type and amount of provision and the age of children who should benefit from it. That is important. In effect, the regulations will determine the age from which free schooling and child care is given. It has important policy implications as well as important financial implications. It should therefore be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so that such issues can be properly debated in the House before the age at which children receive free child care is determined.

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

As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, clause 7 replaces and extends an existing duty on local authorities to secure sufficient nursery education for children of a prescribed age in their area. The aim is to allow the Secretary of State not only to prescribe the age at which children become eligible for the free entitlement, but progressively to extend that free entitlement in line with the commitments outlined in the 10-year child care strategy.

It is perplexing that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative process now. The regulation-making powers are not new and build on powers that the Secretary of State has had since 1998 for funded nursery education, which have operated successfully since then. I cannot see any need to change the current position; it is not about changing policy. We are all in agreement about the importance of continuing early years provision and extending it where we can, and so the age at which that becomes operative, and the amount of free provision, will be subject to progressive extension as resources allow. That is an administrative decision that will not change the fundamental policy of providing the free entitlement to young children and ensuring that we can go as far as we can in that direction.

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

The Minister said that there will be a progressive extension as resources allow. One of the major functions of the House is to allocate resources as and when they are allowed to be allocated. It is disappointing that she has rejected the amendment, which would simply enable Members of Parliament to have a say in extending the age range. It may be that most Members agree with the Minister and the Government’s direction of policy, but it is not right for such decisions to be taken increasingly by Executive order or by regulations subject to the negative resolutions procedure. Those debates have been aired several times, given the huge number of regulatory powers in the Bill, and are increasingly being aired in other Standing Committees and in the House, so I see no purpose in delaying the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.