---

Childcare Bill

I am very happy to be probed on this issue. Clause 5 needs to be read in conjunction with Clause105, which makes clear that any order under Clause 5 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. So there would be an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House any proposed changes. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on the Bill which stated:"““We consider the powers to be appropriately delegated and subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny. In particular, the Department’s memorandum makes the case for the Henry VIII powers at clause 5””—" it also mentions Clauses 6, 22, 41 and 94—"““and the case for the negative procedure for orders under clause 6(4)””." So we have the imprimatur of that important committee in what we are seeking to do. In response to the questions of the noble Baroness, I should say clearly at the outset that we currently have no plans to use the powers in Clause 5. The reason we have taken the power in the Bill is because we believe that it is crucially important that we as a government, and successive governments after us, are able to respond effectively and appropriately to the changing needs and circumstances in society without having to enact primary legislation in every case. It may be helpful in this context to review Clause 2. That clause defines ““early childhood services”” for the purposes of Clause 3, which sets out the requirements as to their delivery by local authorities in partnership with other key stakeholders. Those requirements are to integrate, to maximise access and benefits, to reach out to the excluded and to involve parents and providers. In listing these services, Clause 2 focuses on those key services relating to young children, parents and prospective parents which are essential to delivering the Sure Start vision. This is a vision which is for parents, from the moment they know they are expecting a baby, to see ahead of them a coherent pattern of child health, integrated childcare and education and family support services, some free at the point of delivery, some subsidised according to income. The Committee is familiar with what these services are: early years provision; parenting and family support services; health services; Jobcentre Plus services; and information for parents provided by local authorities. While recognising the need for continuity and certainty, we think it is important to ensure that there is flexibility within the legislation for positive adjustments to be made to ensure that the provisions reflect the best practice for young people and their families. Taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, it is precisely to ensure that changes reflect best practice that we have this provision in the Bill; it is not for arbitrary changes. Change may be needed for a variety of reasons. The role of local authorities in leading Sure Start services for young children is a comparatively recent development, and the services themselves are still evolving. We have made significant improvements to the Sure Start programme already in the light of national evaluation, and we want the legislative framework of this Bill to be able to adapt to future needs. The experience of practitioners, local authorities and parents may make it clear that young children and their families would benefit, for example, from the inclusion of other services. Emerging research or evidence of best practice may require us to take a different approach to childcare and early childhood services. Clearly any amendment to the definition of early childhood services in Clause 2 could lead to a consequential amendment to the partners responsible for them, which are listed in Clause 4. Also, we may need to reflect future changes in how services are delivered by the Department of Health or the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies. The definitions of services used by the Bill rely on other pieces of legislation which may change in ways that would not be simple to reflect by minor consequential amendments. Alteration either to the way in which services are delivered at the front line, or to the legislation underpinning services, would require alteration to the provisions of the Bill. In the event of such changes proving necessary, we believe that it would be more proportionate to amend the Act through affirmative resolution than to require new primary legislation. It is for that reason, in the circumstances that I have set out, that we propose to take the powers outlined in Clause 5.