Childcare Bill

He may be very good, but he has not listened to the debate, and on that basis I will not give way to him. Had he listened more, I should have been happy to do so. Amendment No. 47 proposes to remove the ability to amend the definition of early childhood services. Had the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) either been in the Committee or read the report of this part of its proceedings, she would know that I granted what she is asking at that stage. I said that I envisaged the power being used only in the event of, say, structural changes in individual Departments such as the Department of Health or the Department for Work and Pensions that necessitated technical amendments, or if the experience of practitioners and local authorities made clear that young children would benefit from the inclusion of other services or other relevant partners. I have now put on record twice the circumstances in which we envisage the possibility of that power being used. Amendments Nos. 43 and 56 concern access to services. I believe that amendment No. 43 risks creating a perverse incentive. If authorities need to ““maximise access”” to early childhood services, there may be a danger of their encouraging groups of parents to take up services that they do not need. That would prevent resources from being devoted to the most disadvantaged, which is what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said she wanted. Changing ““identify”” to ““target””, which is proposed in amendment No. 56, is unnecessary, because clause 3(3)(b) requires local authorities to encourage parents who have been identified to take up services. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that the amendment is not necessary. Amendment No. 55 would remove any local authority flexibility in the sharing of resources with relevant partners. I think that we should leave the position as it is. Local flexibility is important. Resources are already being pooled, and I think that the judgment on when that is beneficial should also be made at local level. Amendment No. 11 deals with information for families. I have some sympathy with it. Our intention is to focus resources on information for parents and carers, because they will be the most responsible and will have the most influence. I appreciate that in many cases other family members will act on behalf of parents. I shall make clear in guidance that, in the right circumstances—obviously not when it is against parents’ wishes—they too will be able to have relevant information. As for amendment No. 48, we know that funding and sustainability are key issues for local authorities planning child care. In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) confirmed that he did not expect authorities to look into the future to determine whether a provider was likely to last. Regulations under clause 12 will require local authorities to provide detailed information about providers, including their registration status, how many places they have, and how many funded places they offer. Authorities will also be required to tell parents how to gain access to Ofsted inspection reports that may include information. It is not clear to me what further information authorities would be expected to give other than their own assessments of sustainability, which could be misleading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. There are issues that I have not mentioned, including the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about Investors in Children. I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not convinced of the need for continuation of a kitemark scheme. However, I said to her in Committee that we are working closely with the National Children’s Bureau to see what other arrangements we can put in place, supported by the sector—that is appropriate—to enable the funding that goes to local authorities to be used to ensure that there are local schemes. That will ensure that there is continuing development and improvement through those quality assurance schemes, which is the right way to go. I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will think that I have replied sufficiently for her to withdraw her amendment. Certainly, there is still a considerable political divide on amendment No. 1 and I make no apologies for not accepting it.