---

Childcare Bill

I, too, was generally pleased with the amendments. Again, there were no accompanying notes. I picked up the word ““health”” and I was not sure what it covered, but I believe that the same expression is used in the Protection of Children Act 1999—POCA—list. There may be additional information that I have not had time to find. It would therefore have been helpful to have the information. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions about checks on child care and I imagine that the written statement, which I have not seen, will add to the information that I have gleaned. I, too, am pleased that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will apply to child care and that the list or lists—however it ultimately works out—will have to be checked. However, it prompts the question of why criminal record checks are not required in unregulated settings, such as the crèche under two hours, which I keep mentioning. I had hoped that amendment No. 49 would pick up that point, but its approach is from a slightly different angle. I am still worried that parents do not know that criminal record checks are not carried out on those in unregulated settings. However, I agree that it is helpful to know that the lists will have to be checked before anybody can work with young people. I am pleased with the safeguarding amendments—Nos. 19, 20 and 21. They tie in with other parts of the Bill. However, in Committee, we discussed at great length whether the measure should include the word ““may”” or ““must””. The amendments, which refer to"““the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned””" apply to subsections of clauses that state:"““The regulations may provide””" for the following matters. On safeguarding, the word should be ““must””, as we argued in Committee. The safeguarding amendments make it even more important to revisit the ““may”” and ““must”” argument, which I will not discuss at great length because we spent much time on it in Committee. However, it is worth raising it again because we have changed the measure and our awareness is heightened about the necessity of safeguarding and protecting. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter.