§ Parliamentary Debates
§ Volume 274
§ Session 1995–96
§ ISBN 0 10 681274 2
§ CORRIGENDUM TO THE INDEX
§ A number of errors were made in the production of the index to this volume. Please make the following changes:
| Add: | |
| Evans, Mr Roger | Questions |
| Social fund, Finance 19w | |
| Gill, Mr Christopher | Questions |
| Royal yacht 444w | |
| Jamieson, Mr David | Debates etc. |
| Finance Bill, Rep 1117–8 | |
| Prentice, Mr Gordon | Questions |
| Health authorities, Public appointments 378w | |
| Royal yacht | 444w |
| Soames, Mr Nicholas | Questions |
| Royal yacht 444w | |
| Delete: | |
| Burt, Mr Alistair | Questions |
| Social fund, Finance 19w | |
| Redmond, Mr Martin | Questions |
| Health authorities, Public appointments 377–8w |
§ Change
§ Cancer
§ Diagnosis 662w
§ Consent to medical treatment 662w
§ Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions
§ Consent to medical treatment 662w
§ Diagnosis 662w
§ Diagnosis
§ 662w
§ Cancer 662w
§ Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions
§ Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w
§ Home Office
§ Parliamentary questions 2w
§ Horam, Mr John Questions
§ Consent to medical treatment 662w
§ Diagnosis 662w
§ Howard, Mr Michael Questions
§ Parliamentary questions, Home Office 2w
§ Maclean, Mr David Questions
§ Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w
§ Nicholson, Mr David Questions
§ Parish constables, Manpower 708–9w
§ Parish constables Manpower 708–9w
§ Parliamentary questions Home Office 2w
§ NOVEMBER: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
§ To
§ Cancer
§ Diagnosis 658–9w
§ Consent to medical treatment 659w
§ Cousins, Mr Jim, Questions
§ Consent to medical treatment 659w
§ Diagnosis 658–9w
§ Diagnosis
§ 659w
§ Cancer 558–9w
§ Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Questions
§ Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w
§ Home Office
§ Parliamentary questions 205w
§ Horam, Mr John Questions
§ Consent to medical treatment 659w
§ Diagnosis 658–9w
§ Howard, Mr Michael Questions
§ Parliamentary questions, Home Office 205w
§ Maclean, Mr David Questions
§ Parish constables, Manpower 502w
§ Nicholson, Mr David Questions
§ Parish constables, Manpower 502w
§ Parish constables Manpower 708–9w
§ Parliamentary questions Home Office 205w
219
§
I am receiving dozens of petitions, almost daily, from people of Halifax and Calder Valley—the very constituents of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). They state clearly in their petitions that they want to exercise choice. One such petition states:
We, the undersigned parents, feel that the Government's proposed Nursery Voucher Scheme for 4 year olds is a highly bureaucratic one and will be detrimental to the quality of existing education services.
We therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to exempt Calderdale from the Nursery Voucher System altogether, as Calderdale is already a high provider of good quality Nursery and Reception education. We believe it would be more appropriate to concentrate on providing adequately funded state nursery and reception places for all children.
Those are not my words or the words of any political party. The petition was from a group of parents whose children attend the Shade primary school in the Calder valley, which I am sure is well known to the hon. Member for Calder Valley.
Petitions are coming in from all over Halifax and the Calder valley. Parents are saying loud and clear, "We demand the right to choose what is best for our children." We should challenge the Minister to give them that choice by supporting new clause 3. I am slightly disappointed that it seems that the hon. Member for Calder Valley will not be joining us in the Lobby tonight. The Secretary of State and the Minister can hide behind warm words for only so long. The people of Britain are telling them loud and clear what they want.
6.30 pm
In Calderdale, all children are entitled to a year of full-time schooling in the school year in which they have their fifth birthday. A local organisation, Schools Against Vouchers in Education—SAVE—has produced an excellent fact sheet, which is being posted through every door. I shall quote it at some length, as I want to put the facts on record. It states:
Education is provided free of charge in Primary School Reception Classes. Calderdale also provides nursery education for 70 per cent. of three and four year olds"—
that is a very high figure—
and is working to expand this so that nursery schooling is available for all children in the school year in which they are four.
SAVE is not a political organisation. Its supporters come from all political parties and vote across the spectrum. It continues:
This is now under threat from the Government's new voucher system.
That is clear from the fact sheet. It then explains some of the costs in Calderdale:
The Voucher is called a Nursery Voucher. This is misleading since it applies to all education for four and five year olds and so covers both Nursery and Reception class."—
The voucher will be worth £1,100. This is not enough for a full time place. It costs £2,256 per child"—
§ Mr. PawseyTop-up.
§ Mrs. MahonThe hon. Gentleman says, "Top-up." I wish that he would come and see some of the schools in my constituency, where there is all-party support for extra funding.
§ Mr. PawseyWill the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. MahonNo. Anyone who makes that kind of sedentary intervention clearly does not have the good of children at heart. It was a ridiculous intervention.
220 The document continues:
It costs £2,256 per year for a child in Nursery Class and £1,866 per year for a child in Reception Class.For most children in Calderdale the £1,100 voucher is not new money.As SAVE makes clear:To fund the scheme the Government will take £3 million from Calderdale. This is three quarters of the money the council spends on schooling for the under fives. This could mean fewer teachers, larger classes and cuts in nursery and reception places.Local people are telling the Government that they do not want the new scheme. They are happy with what the council is doing, and they know that the council is working very hard to improve nursery provision from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent., as is available in Solihull.Head teachers, teachers, governors and councillors of all political parties are campaigning to stop vouchers being introduced in Calderdale. Similar campaigns are being set up by schools all over the country. We believe that Calderdale and other local authorities should be allowed to opt out if they wish to continue providing an excellent service.
§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)Will the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. MahonI am sorry, but time is short, and I want to conclude. I am making the case for Calderdale on behalf of the people who are launching the SAVE campaign. The facts are all there. It has taken 20 years, using ratepayers' money and getting all-party agreement, to provide a high standard of nursery education. I challenge the Minister to listen and learn, and the Government can do that by accepting new clause 3.
§ Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)I hope to astound you by my brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for having been called to speak. I come rather late to the debate on the Bill, and I apologise to the House for that. On the other hand, I have taken an interest in education for almost as long as I have been adult and sentient, and that interest has not yet departed from me.
One of my first ever speeches in the House, when my party was in opposition, was sceptical, if not critical, of a move towards vouchers in state education. That was in 1976. In one sense, I have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, but in another I have clung to a sceptical view on the matter.
As I understand it, new clause 3 concerns how we carry forward the expansion of nursery education in Britain. There are currently four pilot projects—three in London and one in Norfolk. My first thought is that, if they are genuine pilot projects, it would be greatly preferable if we could take a bit longer to build up the empirical evidence to find out whether or not it is a good idea. I am not in favour of rushing such matters, and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why he thinks it is so necessary and expedient to go ahead so fast from the pilot phase to the full-blown phase.
I remember the arguments 20 years ago—nothing has changed fundamentally—that vouchers are supposed to be an empowering measure to give parents greater choice and flexibility to do well by their children. However, it is important that the House should be told tonight—even if it has been told in Committee, whose debates I have not had 221 the chance to follow as closely as I should—how much extra money will flow from the new arrangements, allowing for any clawback, and how many additional places will be created for the nursery education of our children.
§ Mr. Robin SquireI hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but the figures have been made public. In the first year, we are providing £165 million of new money in phase 1, and £390 million is being provided over the three years. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible to predict exactly how many additional places there will be, but more will be provided in response to the money.
§ Mr. FormanI am grateful to my hon. Friend. That makes me feel considerably better than I did a few moments ago. Those substantial sums could do a power of good for the children concerned. It is important that we should know that.
I should report to the House that I visit all the schools in my constituency as frequently as I can. On a recent visit that I made to Bandon Hill primary school in Wallington, the head teacher, the staff, the classroom assistants and all the parents who introduced themselves to me were almost unanimous in their view. They were worried and sceptical about the implications of the scheme, although it is possible that they did not have the full facts. They urged me to make that point to the House, and that is exactly what I am doing this evening.
I had the chance to speed-read new clause 3, and I paid attention to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) said in her brief opening speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said in an intervention, one of its weaknesses is that many of the paragraphs in subsection (2) of the new clause make the local education authority effectively judge and jury in its own cause.
Although there is a provision for consultation, to which the hon. Lady referred, I know from my own local authority—alas, under Liberal control—that local authorities' idea of consultation is to put out some expensive documents and go through the motions of listening, but the real parental influence is very small, so it usually turns out to be an expensive sham. If the hon. Lady is resting on that element of her argument, I think it is a fragile foundation.
My scepticism, as I say, goes back 20 years. I am glad to hear from the Minister that genuine extra money will be forthcoming. I hope that it will create useful new nursery places. If it satisfies that criterion, I shall reluctantly support him in the Lobby—but it will need to do that. I hope that the Minister will keep a close eye on developments.
§ Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)I tabled new clause 5, whose objective is similar to that of new clause 3. The Minister will not therefore be surprised to learn that, for reasons that I shall outline briefly, I shall be joining those voting for new clause 3.
I am distraught at the idea that a Conservative Government are not listening to parents. I have explained to the Secretary of State and to the Minister that, in my constituency, almost every parent of a nursery school 222 child has contacted me to tell me that they are highly satisfied with Solihull's current provision of nursery education. Whatever colleagues may say about local authorities, providing £l,800-worth of valuable education is a lot better than introducing a national voucher worth £1,100. The local education authority provides that service voluntarily; it is already strapped for cash by the Government under its standard spending assessment calculation. The money comes from council tax payers, not from the Government. Now, this Government, whom I loyally support, are saying that they intend to impose a system that is bureaucratic, expensive and open to fraud. The parents in my constituency do not want it, and I consider it nothing short of madness.
By all means introduce vouchers for LEAs that are not providing enough nursery education, but it is quite wrong to force the scheme on us and on other LEAs that are doing a fine job. There has not been enough consultation. According to the press, the pilot schemes have run into a great many problems. Forcing through the new scheme by April 1997 will amount to another Dangerous Dogs Act. This rush for nursery vouchers is wholly misguided.
What does the Minister think that I should say to parents? I intend to vote against a scheme that they do not want. Is it a fair, just or democratic solution? Is it Conservative? The Minister cannot talk about parental choice at the same time as countenancing the forced introduction of this scheme for local authorities such as the one in Solihull. The authority is not against private provision. Perhaps the private sector will eventually provide enough high-quality places—but certainly not by April 1997.
Perhaps I should not get so excited, but I am worked up on behalf of the thousands of parents who have contacted me about this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister is talking to his private parliamentary secretary, but I hope that he will listen to the rest of my short speech. I am grateful to him for answering my parliamentary questions and letters. He is a charming Minister, but how can he compare £l,800-worth of provision with £1,100?
§ Mr. Robin SquireI do not need to. Parents will.
§ Mr. MillsI must point out that the provision already exists in Solihull. The Minister is going to charge parents more money for what they already have.
§ Mr. Squireindicated dissent.
§ Mr. RiddickThe money will remain in the hands of local authorities, which will then be able to top up provision for those parents.
§ Mr. MillsThat is fine in theory. The briefing note says that the SSA for the under-fives from which the deduction is made
was allocated on a need-to-spend basis and is unsuited for a flat £1,100 deduction.Solihull's achievements in teaching reading, writing and arithmetic to three-and-a-half-year-olds have been brilliant, but the under-fours cost 100 per cent. more than other groups, so the money cannot later be recouped.223 I have been asked to leave time for the Minister to sum up, and I am sure that colleagues would like to add their contributions—
§ Mr. Pawseyrose—
§ Mr. PawseyI have some correspondence from the Department for Education and Employment dated 11 March, in which it says:
There is absolutely no reason why provision for three year olds should be damaged—no resources have been deducted from LEAs' SSA in respect of provision for three year olds.I suspect that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.
§ Mr. MillsI always value my hon. Friend's advice and find his company extremely pleasant. He will forgive me if I differ on this occasion. Every year, I have been told by Education and Environment Ministers that Solihull's SSA will improve, and every year it has got worse. That is part of the problem: the SSAs do not contribute enough money. I wonder whether my good and hon. Friend understands that Solihull is such a good education authority that more than 1,000 pupils from Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire are on its books.
I understand that a small amount of new money—about £20 million—is to be spent on administration.
§ Mr. SquireInspection.
§ Mr. MillsIf I carry on much longer I shall be shot at dawn—I do not know whether the Minister would like that. Can he give me one good reason why our well-loved, efficient, nationally reputed scheme, which is supported by all parents, should be abandoned in favour of the new one? Why cannot Solihull opt out?
§ Mr. Alan Keen (Feltham and Heston)I cannot beat that. I wish that more Conservative Members were willing to speak out on behalf of the parents who have contacted them, just as they have contacted me in my constituency.
The benefits of nursery education are well known. I had thought that they were accepted on both sides of the House, but I began to doubt that while serving on the Standing Committee throughout February. Research in the United States has shown that the money spent is returned four times over in the lifetime of the recipients of nursery education, but that effect will not be achieved in a watered-down system. That seems to be what the Government are intent on perpetrating on local authorities that already provide high-quality, proper education. I support new clause 3 to defend that high quality, which has been built up carefully over many years and is an investment in the future of the nation.
Both matters covered by the Bill—nursery education and grant-maintained schools—show the Government's persistent short-termism. Manufacturing industry, the health service and now children's education are suffering under the short-term policies of the Government.
We all want to give parents choice, but not to the detriment of the education of our children. If the Bill were to provide high-quality nursery education for all children, it would have everybody's full support. If it were to provide 224 high-quality education and a chance for parents to choose additional playgroup hours, it would also have everyone's support. We do not want high-quality nursery education replaced by playgroups. Some parents, through necessity, may choose longer hours instead of quality. The Government should finance schemes to assist parents to find suitable child care or playgroups. Aiming finance in that direction would stimulate provision, but it is not acceptable to damage existing high-quality nursery education.
The provision of nursery education varies greatly throughout the country. Where it exists, it is integrated into the statutory education system and is an integral part of the infant school years of children who benefit from the cohesion and continuity that the direct links between nursery education provision and statutory education bring. The Government are suggesting a very different scheme, which can be worth while, but not as a replacement for quality nursery education.
New clause 3 would give parents the chance to make an informed and constructive choice. It would give choice to head teachers and voluntary organisations. For an LEA to opt out of the Government scheme, three quarters of local councillors would have to agree. In most cases, that would require cross-party agreement. In Hounslow, that would not be the case at the moment, but the Tory group leader has already said that he supports the retention of Hounslow's nursery education.
I asked in Committee what commercial company would risk damaging a successful part of its business, as the Government will with the nation's existing nursery education. No answer was forthcoming. Why are the Government persevering with the Bill? None of the answers rings true, so there must be another one. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) have asked the same question. We understand that the Government must be attracted to the idea of sending out vouchers worth £1,100 to parents of four-year-olds. On Second Reading, I said that they might as well stamp "Vote Conservative" on the vouchers. That is the only possible explanation of why the scheme is being hurried through so quickly. I am sad to have to say that in a debate about the education of our children.
Why should a Labour Member of Parliament care about electoral prospects of Conservative Members? I care very much about the parents, and the future of our children, because they are the responsibility of us all. Why are the Government risking the futures of some Conservative Members of Parliament in areas with a high quality of nursery education, as two of them have described tonight? I do not understand. I beg the Government to have another think about the Bill and not to do dreadful damage to existing provision.
§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)I shall be brief. In the roll call of honour of the local authorities that provide good nursery education—Calderdale and others have been mentioned—Bury should be included. It provides good nursery and reception class education and I pay tribute to the local authority, which is not of my persuasion, and to the governors, teachers and parents.
I oppose new clause 3 and shall support the Government for two reasons. I believe that it is right in principle to give the freedom of choice that the Bill would provide. I attended a meeting with local head teachers of primary 225 schools in my constituency recently and argued that case with them. The pilot scheme, too, is right, because whenever the Government have proposed legislation in the past, the cry has always been for pilot schemes.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reassure me on two points, and I make those points conditional. First, can my hon. Friend assure me that the pilot scheme is genuine? I told my head teachers that it was; that lessons will be learnt from it; and that, if errors and inconsistencies are found, changes will be made. I ask my hon. Friend to give me that assurance.
Secondly, in specific terms, I have been told by my hon. Friend and his Department that, when this scheme comes into operation in Bury in 1997, if the same number of children who attended school in 1996 turn up in 1997, there will be no loss of funding—not one single penny—for the local authority of which my constituency is part. Will my hon. Friend assure me that that will be so in 1997 and in the years that lie ahead? Will my hon. Friend assure me—I accept that the arrangements will be subject to the elements of local authority funding—that the scheme will make no difference whatever to the funding arrangements for the people whom I represent? On that assurance—that parents will be no worse off and some may be better off, depending how the scheme works—and on the answer about the pilot element, I will support the Government.
§ Mr. Robin SquireIt is not surprising that there has been much scaremongering tonight, mainly from Opposition Members, about the alleged effect that the voucher scheme will have on local authority funding. Frankly, I remain at a loss, having had discussions for months now, to understand why Opposition Members appear genuinely to believe that nursery vouchers might damage existing good provision. Let me make it clear—they will not. I shall spend the short time available spelling that out.
If LEAs are offering a good and popular service, parents will continue to choose that service—obviously, reasonably and intelligently—and nothing will change. No school will be forced to take more children. No school will be forced to change its admission arrangements. We are not forcing schools to undertake activities that the best have not already seized with both hands. What we are doing—it lies at the heart of the debate and is no doubt why Opposition Members continue to use scaremongering tactics—is allowing parents to choose in a way that they have never been able to in the past.
New clause 3, moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), would give every local authority the opportunity to exempt itself, for a financial year, from any of the grant arrangements set out in the Bill. The new clause sets out the conditions and circumstances in which an authority can activate that exemption.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), I wish to stress that the new clause would require consultation with parents. That is an improvement on what was suggested in Committee. The new clause would even involve consultation with the private and voluntary sectors, but at heart it is still about putting local authorities back in the driving seat for the 226 development of local nursery education facilities. All the new clause would require is consultation. There is no mention of any sector apart from the LEA sector playing a decisive role and, of course, there is no mention of a requirement on the local authority to obtain the agreement of those other sectors.
I said over and over, especially in Committee, that we want to put power in the hands of parents and, far from the Bill being a nationalising, centralising measure, it is the greatest decentralisation of all. Let parents decide what is best for their child. Let parents decide whether their child will flourish in the more informal surroundings of pre-school or a more structured environment. We want choice for all parents, not just for those who live in areas whose authorities have chosen not to exempt themselves from the scheme. There is nothing to prevent more local authorities from developing and publishing plans, and I trust that good, forward-looking authorities will do that now. We do not need legislation for that, but we do need legislation to ensure that parents are in the driving seat.
I agree with m y hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who tabled new clause 5, that none of us wants participation in nursery education to decrease. Indeed, as I have spelt out—for instance, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington—we are providing significant new funds to expand nursery education rather than reducing it. There is already a healthy variety of nursery provision, but I want it to be extended still further. As we have made clear time and again, every parent of a four-year-old will have the power to reinforce the decision on where that child should receive nursery education.
7 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden asked me two specific questions. Let me make it clear that no one is forcing a change in the existing provision if parents do not want it. If parents strongly support local authority provision—my hon. Friend made clear the excellence of Solihull's current provision—they need not oppose the voucher scheme; they can simply take their vouchers to the local authority school of their choice, which will give it the maximum buttressing. Moreover, they can tell their friends about it.
Let me tackle a linked point that was made by both my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). Local education authorities do not need to attract extra pupils to make the voucher funding mechanism cash neutral: they need only continue to fill the same number of places. Indeed, if they attract one more pupil, they will be in pocket. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, as a good Yorkshireman, will appreciate that.
Let me explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the top-up that was referred to is, in effect, the extra money that still lies with his local authority—£700. At present, the authority spends that money on providing the excellent nursery education that my hon. Friend mentioned, and it will continue to be able to do so. As for the £20 million that my hon. Friend said was spent on administration, it is spent overwhelmingly on inspection, and will ensure that more than 12,000 providers that are not currently inspected will be. I hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that.
227 Local authorities will not need to close nursery schools or classes, or change their admission arrangements, as a result of the voucher scheme. Local management of schools will enable voucher income to be passed to schools, so local authorities will not even need to change the way in which they fund those schools. I accept that, at this precise moment, I cannot persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, but I hope that he will think about what I have said. I assure him that parents and schools in his constituency have nothing to fear.
Amendment No. 3 is intended to ensure that local authority resources will not be reduced in total as a result of the voucher scheme. That goes back over ground that we discussed in Committee. In effect, the amendment would give a blanket protection to all LEAs. Although I am sympathetic in principle to the idea of ensuring that local authorities do not lose money, I will not countenance an amendment that would ensure that they retain resources for ever and a day, even when their provision is not good and parents have determined to use alternative providers.
I am at a loss to understand the intentions of amendments Nos. 4 and 11. Nursery education is not compulsory; the Secretary of State cannot prejudge parents' decisions, and would not wish to do so. While there are some 660,000 children aged four in England alone—that figure varies from term to term—I see little point in laying an annual report before Parliament setting out the number of children for whom funded nursery education has been provided.
Amendment No. 12 includes the word "evaluation". My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South and for Carshalton and Wallington rightly drew attention to the importance of learning lessons from phase 1, and I assure them that we shall do so. Only two aspects of the scheme are different—the funding mechanism and the inspection regime. On the funding mechanism, we shall be in an excellent position to draw lessons not just from the first term of the scheme, but from the second term, which will begin in September. That will inform us about the mechanisms under which vouchers are redeemed and issued. I am pleased to say that—contrary to comments by Opposition Members—phase 1 is going very well, and the number of providers is up.
I am sorry to have spoken for so long, but a good deal is contained in the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing. I ask the House to reject them, because they are unnecessary and unreasonably delay the advent of the universal nursery education that I assume is wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
§ Ms Estelle MorrisThe Minister has signally failed to advance any argument in favour of forcing local authorities that currently provide top-quality education, and whose communities want them to continue to do so, to adopt the nursery voucher scheme.
Conservative Members have questioned the consultation provision that is inherent in new clause 3. What consultation has taken place about the introduction of the voucher scheme? How many people have queued up to say that that is the best way of providing nursery education? Local authorities did not want to be part of phase 1. Whatever hon. Members' doubts may be about the quality of the consultation for which new clause 3 provides, they cannot doubt that there has been little, if any, meaningful consultation about the voucher scheme.
228 Let me tell the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that his original instincts were right: there is no new money for new places in the scheme. Any new money will go into the private sector, so that parents of children who are being educated in that sector can receive £1,100 to pay for a place for which they are paying out of their own pockets. It is what is described as a dead-weight cost. There will be no new places; there is no new money; there has been no consultation.
New clause 3 would allow local authorities such as Solihull, Halifax and Bury—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)—to go on doing what they have done successfully for the past 17 years, after listening to teachers and parents. The Government have not cared two hoots about nursery education; why, at this late stage—when they have suddenly realised that this is a service worth protecting and working for—should they be able to say to local authorities, "You have been doing this well for a long time, but move over now, because we know how to do it better"? Why should such a central Government diktat be possible? That is what the Minister is saying, however, and that is what he is asking us to vote for.
If the Minister were seriously concerned about the effects of the scheme, he would announce a proper pilot scheme. He would announce a period, after phase 1, during which proper evaluation could take place before phase 2. However, he is asking the House to ignore the proven success of Solihull and other areas, and to replace their arrangements with a scheme that has not even started a pilot phase. There is no argument for that; the Minister has never made such an argument. He has failed to do so again tonight, and I ask the House to divide on new clause 3.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 276.
232| Division No. 82] | [7.08 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Byers, Stephen |
| Ainger, Nick | Caborn, Richard |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Callaghan, Jim |
| Allen, Graham | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) |
| Ashton, Joe | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Austin-Walker, John | Canavan, Dennis |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Cann, Jamie |
| Barron, Kevin | Chisholm, Malcolm |
| Battle, John | Church, Judith |
| Bayley, Hugh | Clapham, Michael |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Clark, Dr David (South Shields) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Benton, Joe | Coffey, Ann |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cohen, Harry |
| Berry, Roger | Connarty, Michael |
| Betts, Clive | Cook, Robin (Livingston) |
| Blair, Rt Hon Tony | Corbett, Robin |
| Blunkett, David | Corston, Jean |
| Boateng, Paul | Cousins, Jim |
| Bradley, Keith | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Burden, Richard | Dafis, Cynog |
| Dalyell, Tam | Litherland, Robert |
| Davidson, Ian | Livingstone, Ken |
| Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Denham, John | McAllion, John |
| Dewar, Donald | McCartney, Ian |
| Dixon, Don | Macdonald, Calum |
| Donohoe, Brian H | McFall, John |
| Dowd, Jim | McKervey, William |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | McLeish, Henry |
| Eastham, Ken | McMaster, Gordon |
| Etherington, Bill | McNamara, Kevin |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | MacShane, Denis |
| Fatchett, Derek | McWilliam, John |
| Faulds, Andrew | Madden, Max |
| Flynn, Paul | Maddock, Diana |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Mahon, Alice |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Mandelson, Peter |
| Foulkes, George | Marek, Dr John |
| Fyfe, Maria | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Galbraith, Sam | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Galloway, George | Martin, Michael J (Springburn) |
| Gapes, Mike | Martlew, Eric |
| Garrett, John | Maxton, John |
| George, Bruce | Meale, Alan |
| Gerrard, Neil | Michael, Alun |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Godsiff, Roger | Milburn, Alan |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Miller, Andrew |
| Gordon, Mildred | Mills, Iain |
| Graham, Thomas | Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Moriey, Elliot |
| Gunnell, John | Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe) |
| Hain, Peter | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Hall, Mike | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Hanson, David | Mudie, George |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Mullin, Chris |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Henderson, Doug | O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire) |
| Heppell, John | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Olner, Bill |
| Hodge, Margaret | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hoey, Kate | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) | Parry, Robert |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Pearson, Ian |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) | Pendry, Tom |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley North) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd) | Pike, Peter L |
| Hoyle, Doug | Pope, Greg |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Hutton, John | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Jamieson, David | Raynsford, Nick |
| Janner, Greville | Reid, Dr John |
| Jones, Leuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn) | Rendel, David |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Rogers, Allan |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Jowell, Tessa | Ruddock, Joan |
| Keen, Alan | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Khabra, Piara S | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Short, Clare |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Lewis, Terry | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Liddell, Mrs Helen | Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wallace, James |
| Soley, Clive | Walley, Joan |
| Spearing, Nigel | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Spellar, John | Wareing, Robert N |
| Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) | Watson, Mike |
| Steel, Rt Hon Sir David | Welsh, Andrew |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Stott, Roger | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Strang, Dr. Gavin | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Straw, Jack | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Wilson, Brian |
| Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) | Wise, Audrey |
| Timms, Stephen | Worthington, Tony |
| Tipping, Paddy | Wray, Jimmy |
| Touhig, Don | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Trickett, Jon | |
| Turner, Dennis | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Tyler, Paul | Ms Janet Anderson and Mr. John Cummings. |
| Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Cope, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Alexander, Richard | Cormack, Sir Patrick |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Couchman, James |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Cran, James |
| Amess, David | Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Day, Stephen |
| Ashby, David | Deva, Nirj Joseph |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Robert | Devlin, Tim |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Dicks, Terry |
| Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V) | Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Duncan-Smith, Iain |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Dunn, Bob |
| Bates, Michael | Durant, Sir Anthony |
| Batiste, Spencer | Eggar, Rt Hon Tim |
| Bellingham, Henry | Elletson, Harold |
| Bendall, Vivian | Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Booth, Hartley | Evennett, David |
| Boswell, Tim | Faber, David |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Fabricant, Michael |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bowden, Sir Andrew | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Bowis, John | Forman, Nigel |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling) |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Forth, Eric |
| Brazier, Julian | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Bright, Sir Graham | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | French, Douglas |
| Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Burns, Simon | Gale, Roger |
| Burt, Alistair | Gallie, Phil |
| Butler, Peter | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Butterfill, John | Garnier, Edward |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Gill, Christopher |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Carttiss, Michael | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Cash, Wlliam | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs) |
| Churchill, Mr | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Clappison, James | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Grylls, Sir Michael |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hague, Rt Hon William |
| Congdon, David | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald |
| Conway, Derek | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy |
| Hannam, Sir John | Page, Richard |
| Hargreaves, Andrew | Paice, James |
| Haselhurst, Sir Alan | Patnick, Sir Irvine |
| Hawkins, Nick | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Hawksley, Warren | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Hayes, Jerry | Pawsey, James |
| Heald, Oliver | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Pickles, Eric |
| Hendry, Charles | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence | PortiIlo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hill, James (Southampton Test) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Horam, John | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Richards, Rod |
| Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) | Riddick, Graham |
| Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Robathan, Andrew |
| Hunter, Andrew | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Jack, Michael | Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Jessel, Toby | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Sackville, Tom |
| Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr) | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Key, Robert | Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Shersby, Sir Michael |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Sims, Roger |
| Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Smyth, The Reverend Martin |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Soames, Nicholas |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Lang, Rt Hon Ian | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) |
| Legg, Barry | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Leigh, Edward | Spring, Richard |
| Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark | Sproat, Iain |
| Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe) | Squire, Robin (Homchurch) |
| Lidington, David | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Steen, Anthony |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Stewart, Allan |
| Lord, Michael | Streeter, Gary |
| Luff, Peter | Sumberg, David |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Sweeney, Walter |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Sykes, John |
| MacKay, Andrew | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd) |
| Malone, Gerald | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mans, Keith | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Marland, Paul | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Thomason, Roy |
| Mates, Michael | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Merchant, Piers | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James | Tredinnick, David |
| Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector | Trend, Michael |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Trimble, David |
| Needham, Rt Hon Richard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nelson, Anthony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Viggers, Peter |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Walden, George |
| Norris, Steve | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Ward, John |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Waterson, Nigel |
| Watts, John | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Wells, Bowen | Winterton, Nicholas (Mace'f'ld) |
| Whitney, Ray | Wolfson, Mark |
| Whittingdale, John | Yeo, Tim |
| Widdecombe, Ann | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Wiggin, Sir Jerry | |
| Wlkinson, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Willetts, David | Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman. |
| Wilshire, David |
§ Question accordingly negatived.