Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill

HL Deb 15 July 1996 vol 574 cc645-87

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 1.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No.2: Page 1, line 7, at end insert (", and where such arrangements are made, the Secretary of State, or a person exercising functions under section 2, shall take all practicable steps in liaison with persons to whom grants are payable to secure that parents about whom information is not available through the use of social security information to which Schedule 2 applies are contacted, to enable their children to have the opportunity to benefit from such education.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the Government or agency to find parents who are not on the DSS database and to ensure that they receive full nursery vouchers. There is widespread concern that many of the most vulnerable children will not receive nursery education as a result of this legislation because their parents are not registered with the Child Benefit Agency and so will not receive an offer to apply for a voucher.

Reference was made earlier to the research done by the DfEE. It showed that, despite the large amount of publicity, including posters, leaflets, advertisements in the local press, advertisements on supermarket trolleys and a helpline number, the main source of information about the voucher scheme was the provider itself, and the main burden was on the provider. That research went on to find that some 60 per cent. of parents believed they had too little information. In the case of Westminster, it was 73 per cent. of parents. Parents also believed that the information was at the wrong level.

This weekend I received a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in which he made it clear that every effort would be made to ensure that eligible children do receive a voucher. He made clear his intention; however, the purpose of the amendment is to place an obligation on the face of the Bill to ensure that all children receive a nursery voucher.

We are talking about the most vulnerable children. It is likely that those who do not receive a voucher are the children of feckless parents, of parents seeking asylum or of parents who may recently have moved. Such children are likely to be very vulnerable. It is right to place an obligation on the face of the Bill to require the Government, through their agencies, to ensure that all children have the opportunity of nursery education. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I agree that it is vitally important that parents, should they wish, apply for vouchers for their children and that children benefit from the scheme. It is also important that schools, nurseries and playgroups receive the grant to which they are entitled.

However, I do not believe that it is necessary or workable to place on the face of the Bill the requirement that contractors and providers must pursue those parents who do not apply for vouchers, as the amendment suggests.

It may be useful, since I wrote to the noble Lord, to remind the House of the measures the department and the contractor have already taken to ensure that eligible children receive vouchers. The vast majority of parents in phase 1 areas received an application form automatically from the child benefit database. I think the House will agree that most children will be on that database, as most parents will be claiming child benefit. Those who did not have been made aware of the opportunity to apply for vouchers through an effective information campaign in the phase 1 LEAs using a range of media.

Most parents who want their child to attend a nursery provider will seek guidance from a local provider and we have ensured that all providers in the scheme have both general information about the scheme and information about how parents should apply for vouchers. And the information we publish for parents stresses the need for them to apply for vouchers and submit them to their chosen provider.

On the whole, these measures have been highly successful. In Norfolk, 97 per cent. of the estimated number of parents with eligible children have applied for a voucher. In Wandsworth, the figure is 95 per cent., and overall it is 91 per cent. For various other reasons I accept that it is somewhat lower in the other two areas, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. But we can learn from the pilot in the phase 1 areas and make sure that we reach the Norfolk levels in phase 2. In the exceptional cases where these measures fail, headteachers of maintained schools are able to apply for vouchers on behalf of children whose parents have been unable to do so.

To return to the meaning of the noble Lord's amendment, it would be helpful if he had indicated how voucher contractors are to contact parents they know nothing about. It would also be helpful if we could hear how providers are to discover these unknown parents to fulfil their role under this amendment. Surely advertising, on the one hand, and informing providers, on the other, are the most effective ways of contacting such parents if they are not on the child benefit database. Obviously, if they are not on the database, it cannot be used in order to contact them.

Bearing those difficulties in mind, and bearing in mind the assurances I gave in my letter to the noble Lord and the assurances I have given on earlier occasions and this afternoon in the House, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary. I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he comment further on the figures he gave? They were all in the nineties, which sounds very impressive. However, I believe he used the word "estimated". Will he tell the House how they were estimated?

Lord Henley

My Lords, again with the leave of the House—we are at Third Reading—I should prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on the precise methodology used by the department in obtaining those figures. So far as I can make out, we are getting to the vast majority of parents in the areas that I mentioned: 97 per cent. in Norfolk is a very impressive figure and 91 per cent. overall is good. I hope that we can improve on that and learn from the pilot. That is why I said I thought that the amendment was unnecessary, that we can make further progress and that we shall continue in phase 2.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's answer. He said that the amendment was not necessary or workable and went on to try to justify that statement by giving statistics saying that something like an average of 91 per cent. of people had taken up their voucher entitlement. The whole point of my amendment is to address that minority of children whose parents have failed to apply for a voucher. I submit that it is not so impressive that something like one in 20 children have failed to take up the voucher. More to the point, the agency does not know why that small minority failed to take it up.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the Government "shall take all practical steps" to ensure that contact is made. I should have thought a simple example of that would be a telephone call just to ensure that a contact is made and the parents are aware of the voucher system. The amendment seeks a duty to contact to be with the agency itself. I am sure that the noble Lord has good wishes but it is not the same as a duty. For that reason, I feel that I must ask the opinion of the House.

5.2 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Howie of Troon, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Hughes, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Irvine of Lairg, L.
Barnett, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Jeger, B.
Berkeley, L. [Teller]	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Birk, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Blackstone, B.	Judd, L.
Borrie, L.	Kennet, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Kirkhill, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Carlisle, E.	Lincoln, Bp.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Lockwood, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	McNair, L.
David, B.	Mallalieu, B.
Davies, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Desai, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Diamond, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Mayhew, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Methuen, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Monkswell, L.
Falkender, B.	Monson, L.
Falkland, V.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Nicol, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Ogmore, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]	Palmer, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Peston, L.
Greene of Harrow Weald, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Grey, E.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Hamwee, B.	Porter of Luddenham, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hayman, B.	Redesdale, L.
Healey, L.	Richard, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Ripon, Bp.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Hooson, L.	Rochester, L.
Howell, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Russell, E	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Sandwich, E.	Thurso, V.
Serota, B.	Tonypandy, V.
Shepherd, L.	Tope, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.	Tordoff, L.
	Turner of Camden, B.
Strabolgi, L.	Varley, L.
Taverne, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.	Winston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Ailsa, M.	Gage, V.
Aldington, L.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Geddes, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.
Annaly, L.	Gisborough, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Goold, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Goschen, V.
Balfour, E.	Gray of Contin, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Beloff, L.	Hayhoe, L.
Berners, B.	Hemphill, L.
Birdwood, L.	Henley, L.
Blaker, L.	Holdemess, L.
Blatch, B.	Hooper, B.
Boardman, L.	Inglewood, L.
Bowness, L.	Ironside, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Brentford, V.	Kintore, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Kitchener, E.
Bruntisfield, L.	Knollys, V.
Burnham,L.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Butterworth, L.	Leigh, L.
Cadman, L.	Lindsay, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Campbell of Cray, L.	Liverpool, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Long, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Lucas, L.
Camock, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Chelmsford, V.	McConnell, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Coleraine, L.
Coleridge, L.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Cornwallis, L.	MacLehose of Beoch, L.
Courtown, E.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Cox, B.	Marlesford, L.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Merrivale, L.
Cuckney, L.	Mersey, V.
Cumberlege, B.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Davidson, V.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
De Freyne, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
De L'Isle, V.	Mottistone, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Mountevans, L.
Denham, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Demon of Wakefield, B.	Munster, E.
Devonport, V.	Murton of Lindisfame, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Newall, L.
Downshire, M.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Norfolk, D.
Elles, B.	Northesk, E.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Eme, E.	Orkney, E.
Erroll, E.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Feldman, L.	Pender, L.
Ferrers, E.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Fiasberg, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Flather, B.	Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Quinton, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Skelmersdale, L
Rees, L.	Stewartby, L.
Rennell, L.	Strange, B.
Renton, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Renwick, L.	Sudeley, L.
Romney, E.	Teviot, L.
St. Davids, V.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Trefgarne, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.	Vivian, L.
Seccombe, B.	Westbury, L.
Sharples, B.	Wigram, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.	Wise, L.
Sherfield, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.10 p.m.

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) Education in respect of which grants are payable under this section shall be given in premises conforming to such standards as to space and facilities as the Secretary of State shall by regulations specify.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to require institutions in receipt of nursery vouchers to conform to indoor and outdoor space standards. We have debated this subject extensively on previous occasions during the passage of the Bill and I shall try not to detain the House too long. However, I make no apology for returning to the subject because it is important and this is our last attempt to try to get something in the Bill which lays down requirements as to standards of teaching accommodation and recreation areas.

All of us believe and accept that children require space in which to learn, play and develop; that overcrowding cannot be in anyone's interest; and most of all that it cannot be in the interest of children, whether in the classroom or the playground. I have expressed anxiety previously that because the value of the nursery voucher in many cases will not meet the full cost of nursery provision, there will inevitably be pressure upon some providers at least to obtain as near as possible the value of the voucher. Part of that pressure is likely to have an effect on the space provisions. That may be mostly so with new providers who will have to meet capital and other costs necessary to starting up and they will be under pressure not to meet acceptable standards. It is also an important health and safety issue.

Amendment No. 3, unlike previous amendments, takes account of the worries expressed by the Minister at earlier stages. It recognises that different types of provider may need varying standards of provision. It meets his objection, also expressed at earlier stages, that it would bind all providers to restrictive requirements and therefore in this case it restricts requirements only to those providers in receipt of nursery vouchers.

The amendment leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what the standards should be. It makes no prescription as to what they should be; simply that they should be prescribed. It is likely that the standards will be those that would otherwise be contained in the guidance and therefore the only difference between us is whether it should best be done by guidance or regulation. We believe that it is better done by regulation because that has a stronger effect. It means that the providers "must" comply rather than "should" comply. That is important for that small minority which has previously been described as "cowboys"—those out to make a quick buck. But, more importantly, it is fair that genuine providers who are trying to meet and wish to meet the standards know that others must meet the standards as well; in other words, that it is a fair competition.

The amendment meets all the previous objections from the Minister. I am reasonably confident therefore that he will accept it; I hope that he will and I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment. We can add nothing to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in his admirable description of the need for the provision.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I hate to pour a bucket of cold water over these matters but we cannot accept the amendment. As the noble Lord made clear, it requires the Secretary of State to specify in regulations standards for space and facilities to which all voucher-redeeming pre-school providers of nursery education must conform.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we have been over this ground before both at Committee and at Report stages, and perhaps I can explain once again why we have different regulations and requirements for different settings.

We believe that there are some important differences between the maintained and non-maintained sectors. The former offers education; the latter offers day-care facilities as well as education and can cater for very young children. Those differences require different regulations prescribing different standards and requirements.

The new school premises regulations (which come into force in September this year) will not specify minimum requirements for teaching accommodation or recreation areas. That is because we believe that LEAs and school governors are in the best position to decide how to administer their school premises. The new regulations will give governors and LEAs increased flexibility over their accommodation arrangements. The guidance we shall be publishing later this year will help schools and LEAs make informed decisions.

Perhaps I can make it clear to the House that both the revised school premises regulations and the relevant Children Act guidance contain important requirements for essential areas of health and safety—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Our policies fully address the issue of premises' standards for institutions that will redeem nursery vouchers while recognising the important differences between sectors. I hope therefore that on this occasion the noble Lord, slightly happier than on previous occasions, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I cannot claim to be any happier than I was on previous occasions. However, we have gone as far as we reasonably can in trying to reach a compromise with the Minister's concerns. I have said—on too many occasions now—that guidance, though useful, is not a requirement as such.

We have expressed our anxieties. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to include on the face of the Bill anything other than that which is already there in relation to this extremely important issue. I do not intend to take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) No arrangements for the issue of vouchers in respect of nursery education shall be made in relation to Wales until the Secretary of State has consulted the Welsh Joint Education Committee on the arrangements and on the implications of the report of the Secretary of State evaluating the operation of any grants for nursery education made during the financial year 1996/7.)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of our debates on the relevance of the Bill to the Welsh education system, my honourable friend and myself moved a series of amendments where we sought to include on the face of the Bill assurances about the implementation of the scheme in relation to Wales. So far we have not succeeded. But being an optimistic nation we never give up hope and it is with those thoughts that I tabled Amendment No. 4.

This is a simple attempt to put on the face of the Bill the indication that we were given both at Report stage and by letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans, the Under-Secretary of State for the Welsh Office—the MP in another place—on 11th July, that the department is prepared to consult with the Welsh Education Committee on the implementation of the scheme in Wales.

The reason for putting the provision on the face of the Bill is simple. We have failed to have any success in obtaining from Ministers, apart from a few cursory references, a recognition of the distinctive expression of education policy in relation to the current nursery system in Wales. We have also failed to obtain from the Minister and the department an indication that they will seriously and independently monitor the effects of the scheme.

We make the next point as strongly as we can in view of the petition that was presented again last week to the Welsh Office by supporters of the current system of nursery education. This scheme is being implemented with the universal hostility of the teaching profession, parents, school governors and communities throughout Wales. There has been no demand in Wales for this scheme and there is still no demand for it. My concern is that we have got to a position where the Government are prepared to legislate on this issue without regard for public opinion in Wales. That is not normal, even for Conservative Governments, which have not had a majority in Wales in living memory.

In moving this amendment I request that even at this late stage the Government have a full review of the operation of the nursery voucher scheme and not the kind of review indicated in the letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans to me and what he described as "an on-going review" of the development of the nursery voucher scheme being the right one. An on-going review is of course necessary and we expect the department to do that. But we want a full review, with an interim report at the end of the first year and a more detailed, final report at the end of the second year. That review should be a formal exercise. We say that because there has been no pilot scheme. The Government will explain that away by saying that nobody volunteered. But that is not sufficient justification for not having one. Therefore, we argue that a review should be undertaken by the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector in full consultation with ACAC, the curriculum assessment body, the WJEC and the Welsh Language Board in which I have an interest and which I now declare.

That review requires that the scheme should be evaluated from the point of view of whether it has ensured an increase on the current figures in the numbers receiving nursery education; whether the system established to administer the scheme in Wales is both effective and efficient; and whether the new system does not adversely affect the provision of quality nursery education throughout Wales, and in particular the value and quality of Welsh bilingual education.

Not to do that would be to put at risk the achievements that have already been recorded in the nursery sector in Wales, and in particular the achievement recorded by Mudiad Ysgolion Meithvin, the voluntary body concerned with the pre-school age and the Pre-School Playgroups Association in Wales, and all those who have been involved in the statutory sector of reception classes in developing the very effective language teaching and bilingual policy. More than anything else, it has effected a turn around in the numbers who speak Welsh among the cohort of school age and enabled us to talk realistically of having a bilingual nation within the foreseeable future.

Nothing should jeopardise these achievements. I am not assured that the Government's response so far has indicated their concern for that. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that, either here at this late stage or in the other place at an even later stage, in his response to the representations made to him he will announce the Government's intention to organise a proper review of the implementation of the scheme. I ask the Minister to tell his honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Jonathan Evans, that, although we like to receive letters from him, they have to be a little bit better than the one of 11th July. We welcome him to the Welsh Office as a Minister and we hope that he will do better. To tell me and my noble friends, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, as he did on the 11th July, that, the Welsh Office is taking steps to ensure that the Welsh dimension is taken fully into account", is no more than it should do. It is one of the functions of the department, and that is within government policy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the implementation of that so-called dimension being taken into account as regards this scheme.

For those reasons, it is high time that we had a clear indication from the Government that they are going to respond to Welsh public opinion on this issue. It is not enough to give us assurances that legislation has flexibility and that the Welsh Office may or may not introduce separate arrangements and regulations. It should be on the face of the Bill that we have here a distinctive education system, with its own distinctive provision. The publication of the results of the effects of nursery education in the annual report of the chief inspector is not enough, even though over the years they have provided a strong and independent voice in assessing the education system. We need a proper and clear independent review. I beg to move.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I speak to this amendment, although I shall not go over the ground that has been so ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.

The Bill has two objectives. We heard about them at Second Reading. They are to extend nursery education to all four year-olds whose parents want it and to enhance parental choice. In Wales we start with the fact that the investment in nursery education is well advanced, although it is not without shortcomings. But instead of building on the best of existing Welsh experience, with an eye particularly to remedying the defects that there may be in the system, the Welsh Office has pressed the facts of Welsh life into the Department for Education mould and emerged with a model that does not fit the Welsh situation or meet the needs of Wales.

In Wales it appears that the overriding objective of the Bill is to enhance parental choice. That comes out very strongly in the evidence of the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I shall not weary the House with reading extracts from the report, which can be found between pages 3 to 21. But if we concede just for the moment that the wider policy—it is described as such—succeeds in giving more opportunities for some parents to exercise choice in nursery education, what will be the price? That is the question being asked in Wales.

It was a unanimous report from the Select Committee. It did not divide on party lines. The report concluded that the application of the scheme could do a great deal of damage to existing nursery provision in Wales and impede the development of nursery provision for three year-olds. That provision is now available to 40 per cent. of three year-olds. That is the fear that has been expressed in countless letters which I and other noble Lords from Wales have received from parents, teachers, governors and their representative organisations.

If the Bill is introduced and applied in Wales, Welsh nursery education, which has been built up for many decades by Welsh local authorities, will become vulnerable. That risk deserves special consideration, yet nowhere in the evidence from the Welsh Office to the Select Committee or from elsewhere is there any reference to this risk. It appears to us that it has just been ignored.

The Welsh Office Minister, Mr. Jonathan Evans, in his letter of 11th July to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, refers to the on-going review of the development of the scheme. One might concede that it is a very small step in the right direction, but it does not satisfy the representative organisations I have spoken to and I hope that it will not satisfy your Lordships.

The Welsh Office failed to evaluate the risk inherent in the Bill. We say that the Bill must now reflect that risk. That is what the amendment is about. The letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans says that there will be an ongoing review undertaken by Welsh Office education officials—with their present convictions. That in no way allays our anxiety. There is no undertaking that there will be a report within 12 months of the completion of the 1996–97 schemes. If we are to place any reliance at all on that letter, we must press for an independent review and for the involvement of the Welsh Joint Education Committee in the task of evaluating the grants made during the 1996–97 financial year.

Members of the House who come from Wales will know that the WJEC has had a fine record of service to Welsh education for the past 50 years. It has detailed knowledge and experience of the Welsh education service and it is independent of the Welsh Office. More importantly still, it enjoys the confidence of the Welsh public. We ask the Government to accept the amendment and to allow the WJEC to undertake a review of the scheme before it is applied in Wales. It is a small concession and I trust that the Minister will be able to accept it.

5.30 p.m.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, one of the great virtues of Welsh culture is the high regard in which education is held. That includes pre-school education. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, we have long known that the route to the classless society is through the classroom. We have long known that the pathway to personal fulfilment is through academic achievement. Nothing must be done to endanger that.

I ask my noble friend why the Government insist on a common provision across England and Wales when the conditions that prevail in England are very different from those in Wales. I find quite a lot to commend in the amendment, but I await my noble friend's reply.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment, which seems to be about the minimum that could be requested. If the Government resist this amendment, they will be seen entirely to have given up any pragmatic approach to education. After all, when the Prime Minister adumbrated this scheme in the first place, the targets that he set out had already been achieved in Wales. Why should all that be prejudiced? There was no volunteer for an experimental scheme in Wales because nobody wanted such a scheme. There was not sufficient impulse in even the most Conservative part of Wales for there to be any volunteers for such an experimental scheme.

I should like to deal with one particular point. As I said in Committee, we had the pleasure of meeting the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Jonathan Evans, at Gwydyr House before our previous debates on this. He listened carefully and courteously to us, but I am bound to say that one point in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is causing great concern in Wales. Mr. Evans wrote: Lord Hooson during both Committee and Report Stage made the point that schools will have to move from full-time to part-time provision under the voucher scheme. That is not the case. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent schools from continuing to provide exactly the same sort of provision as at present, eg if schools are currently funded to provide full-time places, there is no reason why that should change because of vouchers … It is important to remember that the transfer from the local authority sector will be no more than £1100 (even though authorities may spend more than this per four year old place) and will not take account of expenditure on provision for three year olds". The real concern in Wales is that voucher funding is based on part-time education, whereas 92 per cent. of four to five year-olds in Wales already have either full-time or part-time education and over 70 per cent. of those four to five year-olds have full-time education. It is the hope in Wales that the rest of Wales can move up from providing part-time education to providing full-time education. What will be the effect of the Bill on that? Will such provision be funded in the future? That is an important point.

Perhaps I may comment on the background to the concern in Wales. There have been squeezes on the inspectorate in Wales. There are now fewer inspectors than there were. We are told that the scheme will be reviewed from time to time and inspected. However, a lady from Chirk, which is on the Welsh side of the border, wrote to me about her concern over her children's education. She told me how pleased she was about educational provision not only for four and five year-olds, but also for three year-olds, in Wales. When she moved to the area she was fearful about what the state education system might provide because she had moved from an area where state-provided education did not have such a good reputation. She said that, had there been a small private school, she might have been tempted by its self-promotion and sent her children to it. She wrote that that would have been a mistake.

Obviously, there are deficiencies in some parts of Wales but, by and large, I am sure that in relation to nursery education England wishes that it was in the same advanced state as Wales. Why jeopardise all that now? If the Government cannot accept this amendment, that will show that they have lost all semblance of a pragmatic approach.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. I support it because over 100 years ago my grandfather went to school in Wales at the age of three-and-a-half. He was punished for speaking Welsh—a policy imposed by the English and possibly adopted in England at that time. However, nursery education was available then in Wales.

During the passage of this Bill we have not received a single concession to consensus. The Minister has been unable, has felt unable or has been constrained to be unable to make any concessions in favour of consensus. The Government cannot point to one single decision that they have taken since 1979 which has affected local government finance which has not had unexpected financial repercussions, complications and problems. How dare people in England, based on the experience of what happens in Whitehall, make a judgment and then impose it on the people of the Principality?

If the Government believe that this is merely the view of the Labour Party in Wales, obviously they are not aware that there are some extremely independent Independents the length and breadth of Wales. If there had been one whiff of support for the Government's proposals (either from a minority or the majority), we would have received letters about it. I say that as somebody who has over 10 years' experience of working with Welsh Independents as well as with Welsh colleagues in the Labour Party.

I should like to concentrate now on the Government's imposition of totally centralised decision-making. If I were in favour of the conspiracy theory, I would welcome this because I think that the Government are putting up yet another flag behind which the people of Wales can rally in favour of a Welsh assembly. It is my experience that, from small villages in North Wales to the schools in the large urban communities of Cardiff, nobody wants what the Government are imposing; or are the Government frightened of the result of the evaluation to the point where they are not prepared to wait and see and then argue their case from a position of strength? Teachers, parents, Church leaders, voluntary organisations and school governors—people the length and breadth of the Principality—are telling the Government that they have got it wrong. Is it beyond the capacity of even this Government occasionally to admit that consensus is a better model than railroading and driving roughshod over the people of Wales and what they believe? Is it just possible that for once the Minister is able to reply not with a bucket of cold water but with the hand of co-operation so that we may achieve more and not end up with so many tragic wrecks of government mistaken and arrogant impositions on people?

Why do people in England believe that when it has taken them so long to achieve the Government's targets the Government have the right to look at someone who has achieved in Wales what the Prime Minister said he was setting out to achieve and then seek to undermine it? They are not my words but the words of the people of Wales. I hope that for once the Minister will be able to say that the Government are in favour of consensus and do not want to impose on the people of the Principality yet again something that they have not voted for and have not asked for, bearing in mind that the Government do not have the courage to wait and demonstrate whether there are any benefits.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am rather pained by the allegation made by the noble Baroness in her speech—which sounded more like a Bill do now pass speech—that I have not moved at all at any stage in this Bill. I would have thought that the concessions that I brought forward on the SEN code of practice were fairly major and fundamental and generally welcomed by the House. To suggest that I have resisted and rejected all the way through is unfair. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her words on another occasion.

The intention of the amendment, rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas sought, calls for consultation by the Secretary of State for Wales with the Welsh Joint Education Committee in respect of the evaluation of phase 1 of the scheme. It is important that the noble Lord recognises that it will not deliver the full review that he appears to seek. It would only require consultation with the Welsh Joint Education Committee for implementation of the scheme in Wales. It would not achieve the objectives which I believe the noble Lord set out. The review promised by my honourable friend in another place and in his letter would do just that.

I do not believe that there is very much more I can say that we have not already debated at considerable length at both Committee and Report stages about the position in Wales. As my right honourable friend has made clear, he and the Welsh Office firmly intend to keep the scheme under review and to make sure that full account is given to the Welsh dimension. I can assure noble Lords that both I and my right honourable friend in the Welsh Office recognise that there is very much a Welsh dimension.

The Welsh Office is ensuring that providers in Wales work to specific educational outcomes agreed for Wales. All establishments will be inspected according to the framework for inspection devised by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales. The contractor for the scheme will be required to ensure that a bilingual service is provided. We have made clear all along that phase 1 will help inform implementation in Wales. Welsh Office Ministers and officials will liaise very closely with Ministers and officials in my department.

The Welsh Office wants to involve LEAs in Wales in this process. In a letter to the WJEC earlier this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that he hoped constructive dialogue with officials would continue in the run-up to introduction of the scheme. Indeed, officials have been in touch with the Association of Directors of Education in Wales as recently as last week about arrangements for meetings to discuss the detailed implementation of the scheme. Had it not been for a local authority boycott of meetings with the Welsh Office, dialogue might have been possible much earlier.

Colleagues in the Welsh Office very much want to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme in Wales with local authorities and the WJEC both before its start and during its operation. Welsh Ministers have made it clear that they want to involve all the key players—local authorities, WJEC, voluntary sector, the inspectorate and parents—and ensure that there is an objective view of the impact of the scheme in Wales. If at any time it seems that the arrangements in Wales warrant modification, Welsh Office Ministers have made it clear that they will not hesitate to do so. The legislation offers this flexibility.

I give an assurance that the Welsh Office is committed to full monitoring of the scheme in Wales and will include any effects on current provision and the value added element. On-going monitoring, including dialogue with local authorities, will allow the Welsh Office to implement a scheme which will fully reflect the particular circumstances of Wales. But what we cannot contemplate is a delay to the scheme in Wales and a situation where parents in Wales do not have the same opportunities as their counterparts in England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, seemed to imply, that is not centralising but giving power to parents.

In the light of the assurances that I have given of the intentions of my right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office about involving the Welsh Joint Education Committee in discussions on the detailed operation of the scheme in the run-up to implementation in Wales, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am in a little difficulty. We are chastised for moving amendments that are too radical. Apparently we are now chastised for moving amendments which will not make much difference. On that basis, I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House.

5.46 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Howie of Troon, L.
Barnett, L.	Hughes, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Birk, B.	Inchyra, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Jeger, B.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Carlisle, E.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Judd, L.
Carter, L.	Kennet, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Craigavon, V.	Kintore, E.
David, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Davies, L.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Lincoln, Bp.
Desai, L.	Lockwood, E.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Longford, E.
Dubs, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Elis-Thomas, L. [Teller.]	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Falkender, B.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Falkland, V.	McNair, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Mallalieu, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Fitt, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Mayhew, L.
Greene of Harrow Weald, L.	Meston, L.
Grey, E.	Methuen, L.
Hamwee, B.	Monkswell, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Haskel, L.	Nicol, B.
Hayman, B.	Ogmore, L.
Healey, L.	Peston, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Hooson, L.	Prys-Davies, L.

Redesdale, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Richard, L.	Taverne, L.
Ripon, Bp.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Robson of Kiddington, B.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Rochester, L.	Thurso, V.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank L.	Tonypandy, V.
Russell, E.	Tope, L.
	Tordoff, L.
St. Davids, V.
	Turner of Camden, B.
St. John of Bletso, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Sandwich, E.	Wharton, B.
Serota, B.	White, B.
Shepherd, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Stafford, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.	Winston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Geddes, L.
Aldington, L.	Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Gisborough, L.
Annaly, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Ashboume, L.	Goold, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Goschen, V.
Balfour, E.	Gray of Contin, L.
Barber of Tewkesbury, L.	Greenway, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hardwicke, E.
Berners, B.	Hayhoe, L.
Birdwood, L.	Hemphill, L.
Blaker, L.	Henley, L.
Blatch, B.	Hesketh, L.
Boardman, L.	Holderness, L.
Bowness, L.	HolmPatrick, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Inglewood, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Ironside, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Bruntisfield, L.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Bumham, L.	Leigh, L.
Butterworth, L.	Lindsay, E.
Cadman, L.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Liverpool, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Long, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Lucas, L.
Carnock, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Chelmsford, V.	McConnell, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Coleridge, L.
Colwyn, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Cornwallis, L.	Marlesford, L.
Courtown, E.	Merrivale, L.
Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Mersey, V.
Cuckney, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Davidson, V.	Mottistone, L.
De L'Isle, V.	Mountevans, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Denham, L.	Murton of Lindisfame, L.
Demon of Wakefield, B.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Norfolk, D.
Downshire, M.	Northesk, E.
Ellenborough, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Elles, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Elton, L.	Palmer, L.
Falmouth, V.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Feldman, L.	Pender, L.
Ferrers, E.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Finsberg, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Flather, B.	Pike, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Gage, V.	Prior, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.	Stewartby, L.
Rees, L.	Strange, B.
Rennell, L.	Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]
Renwick, L.	Sudeley, L.
Romney, E.	Teviot, L.
Saint Albans, D.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Trefgarne, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.	Vivian, L.
Seccombe, B.	Westbury, L.
Sharples, B.	Wigram, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.	Wise, L.
Skelmersdale, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.54 p.m.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 1, line 24, at end insert— ("provided that in the case of a person who has not previously been a provider of nursery education subject to inspection by him, the Chief Inspector has placed that person on a public register maintained by him of such persons who provide or can reasonably be expected to provide nursery education of a satisfactory quality and standard.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this amendment which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and myself. I should say first that the noble Baroness is detained on business elsewhere in the House and has asked me to move it on her behalf as well as my own, which of course I do with pleasure.

The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the chief inspector to maintain a public register of those persons who can provide, or who can reasonably be expected to provide, nursery education of a satisfactory quality and standard. This amendment would have the effect of providing what might be called a provisional licence until, following final inspection, a validation is granted. The tightening up on scrutiny of new providers is needed to prove that they too will be capable of providing a service which is of sufficient standard to meet the meagre curriculum requirements in the SCAA desirable learning outcomes document.

The amendment would require the chief inspector at least to provide a reasonable safeguard against rogue providers whose aims may be to make a financial killing and then move on. It will also guard against the well-meaning amateur potential providers who simply do not have sufficient resourcefulness with which to establish an effective programme of teaching and learning.

The Minister in his reply may again claim that all is well, because no provider may be allowed to be funded from nursery voucher income unless he or she meets the registration requirements of the Children Act 1989. That is all very well, but the Children Act does no more than charge the social services department of the local authority to satisfy it that the person is fit to look after the under-eights. It says nothing about their education. It provides some guidance and some indication of where it may seek advice before making that decision, but in practice those powers are at best advisory and will be constrained by available resources which are set against the many statutory duties with which the social services departments are charged.

During Committee stage the Minister hinted at the possibility of making better use of the self-assessment schedule. At least in principle he conceded that there should be an initial screening of new providers to test their calibre prior to awarding grant. He may again expand a little further on that when he replies. There is little doubt that completing a self-assessment schedule may reveal only that which the individual is either capable of understanding and knowing or is willing to admit. The trained eye of an inspector, even at some distance removed from the nursery setting, will be able to gain a view as to the suitability of the person applying for grant.

This process may, if taken together with the registration under the Children Act, strengthen the requirements for high standards and quality in nursery education which we are all seeking. The effect of scrutinising such initial providers and authorising their inclusion on a public register will add considerably to public confidence in a scheme which, as far as new providers are concerned, stands untested by the pilot scheme and is therefore not even subject to evaluation, let alone open to a professional once-over prior to the phase 2 implementation. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, as I think I explained at an earlier stage, we have already made arrangements for a register of eligible providers to be maintained by the voucher company. The company will make that register available free of charge on request. Again, as I explained I think in some depth on Report, to which the noble Lord referred—I shall return to that point later—we have in place robust arrangements to ensure that all participating providers placed on the register, including private and voluntary sector providers, provide education of a consistently high standard.

Again, I stress that there is no risk of the cowboy outfits joining the register. Under the quality assurance arrangements, all private and voluntary sector providers will need to be registered under the Children Act. I have no qualms about mentioning that again because it is important. That means that they will have to pass, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, put it, inspection by the social service department in which the inspectors have to satisfy themselves that the staff are fit persons to work with children; that the premises are suitable; and they will also need, for the first time, to work towards a set of goals for children's learning development, developed by SCAA, and publish information for parents.

There are already many four year-olds in private and voluntary sector establishments. Such establishments do not currently have to adhere to any requirements in relation to the quality and standards of education. It will be to the benefit of children in such establishments that the voucher scheme starts as soon as possible so that we can have inspections as soon as possible.

The noble Lord asked me to say a little more about the self-assessment schedule. It too will act as an important tool for providers to identify their strengths and weaknesses and will act as stimuli to improve quality and standards of education. Again, as I said on Report, we shall consider with interested outsiders and experts whether to require providers to complete and submit the schedule within a certain timescale. The schedule could then be passed to an inspector in advance of the first inspection. I can assure the House that we shall give serious consideration to that option before phase 2. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore feel that his amendment is unnecessary and be able to withdraw it.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and the assurances that he has given. I wish him well with that. I remain to be convinced, particularly with regard to new providers, which by definition must have an untested record. Existing providers have at least some record. Parents have something against which to judge their performance, standards and quality. That cannot of course be the case with new providers. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given, at which we shall look with interest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 7:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

PARTNERSHIP IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS

(".—(1) Arrangements made under section 1 above shall be made in accordance with a strategy for nursery education published or revised in accordance with this section.

(2) A local education authority shall publish, and from time to time revise, a strategy for the provision of nursery education within its area.

(3) In drawing up or revising a strategy under this section, a local education authority shall have regard to—

1. (a) the needs of children aged three and four in its area;
2. (b) the quality and range of educational provision for such children;
3. (c) the desirability of involving parents of such children in the provision of nursery education;
4. (d) the efficiency and effectiveness of different types of educational provision for such children and the desirability in relation to the needs of the area of securing the most effective distribution of resources among those types.

(4) Before publishing or revising a strategy under this section a local education authority shall consult persons within its area who appear to it to be concerned, including persons representative of parents, voluntary organisations and such persons as may have been prescribed under section 1(4)(b) above.

(5) In drawing up, revising or implementing a strategy under this section, a local education authority shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may issue.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is important as it provides a framework for a partnership at local level to ensure that the needs of all children in the locality are met. In drawing up its strategy, an LEA is to have regard to a number of factors designed to underpin the commitment to partnership working and the creation of a mixed economy of nursery education within a development plan. Thus, under subsection (3) of the new clause, the LEA is to have regard to the needs of children aged three and four in its area and to secure the best quality and range of nursery education for such children.

With regard to the needs of three year-olds, I refer to the need to ensure that the needs of three year-olds with special educational needs, including behavioural and social difficulties and moderate learning difficulties, are recognised as important. The LEA is required to look also at the effectiveness of different types of provision to meet the needs of all children in the area. So a LEA may well find that high quality, good value education may be provided through the encouragement of pre-school education in a particular area.

During the passage of the Bill, many speakers referred to the unique circumstances that exist in some rural communities. I think of my county of Lancashire where in some small villages there is a small Anglican primary school and a small Catholic primary school to serve the needs of a small scattered community. In those circumstances, leaving the matter to the marketplace will not necessarily guarantee that the needs of those children are met. Before publishing or revising its development plan, an LEA would be required to consult people in the area who appear to be representative of parents, the voluntary sector and private providers, and to pay due regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may wish to issue as to how a development plan should be drawn up.

The new clause aims to set out a coherent framework within which the power of the Secretary of State to make grants could be used in relation to some or all of the sectors involved so as to secure the best possible expansion of nursery education within the resources available. It could be tailored to suit local circumstances. That is important, because circumstances in different parts of England and Wales vary enormously. There needs to be more than just a reference to the haphazard nature of the market system through the use of vouchers.

The important issue here is to ensure that all sections of the community, in particular parents, are given an opportunity to contribute to debating the needs of the community. I spent part of my childhood in a small rural community with few children of school age. There was a child who had a withdrawn mother who did not develop contacts with the rest of the community. Her husband was an agricultural worker and they lived a long way from the village. When that child started school at the age of five he could not speak. That was a fairly affluent area of Leicestershire. Those needs could have been overlooked. That child would not have been actively sought by any of the providers because to meet the needs of children with special needs may take people more time than is envisaged.

Why cannot we have a commitment to encourage good local planning? That is part of building community respect, and community respect is one of the things which is increasingly missed. I listened carefully to the Minister's response to my views on Wales. It would be churlish of me not to admit that there were concessions with regard to special educational needs and the code of practice. I hope that that was the beginning of a further concession in this area. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may emphasise its importance in terms of the quality and range of educational provision for three and four year-olds and of ensuring that it is done in a way which reflects the needs of the local community. Those points were eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington.

In case the Minister is tempted to respond by saying that this is another example of people wanting big brother to do everything and that the market will provide, perhaps I may make one further point. In local government, irrespective of which party or parties are in control, partnership is the name of the game. That is what we seek, as do the institutions which are not part of local government. They expect to co-operate with local government, which expects to co-operate with them. The private and voluntary sectors and local government find that there is added synergy when that operation takes place.

The new clause seeks to put on the face of the Bill a description of what is happening in many local authorities. We wish to see that in the Bill, which covers an unusual way of funding a publicly provided service. I hope that the Minister will listen to our arguments.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, perhaps I may underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in relation to rural areas. Parts of my diocese in Yorkshire are remote; I suspect as remote as any in England. The difficulty of seeing how a market system will respond to the demands in those areas is enormous. Some years ago I visited a county-maintained school, not a church school, in which there were five children at the primary stage. That is the kind of number of children that there are in such remote areas. Without planning and working together, I find it difficult to understand how provision will be made for those children. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I can trump the right reverend Prelate's school of only five pupils at the primary stage. When I was a county councillor, in my county council division was a school with only three children. I tried manfully to save it but I have to say that my heart was not in it. Indeed, I doubt whether a school of that size can provide an appropriate education.

We debated the need for an early years strategy during Report stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness made the point during that debate that in her view there is a need for planning and for organisations to work together.

I have no difficulty with the notion of planning and certainly applaud organisations working together in a common aim. But I do not consider that those factors necessitate local authorities preparing development plans or putting together a strategy. There is little that I can add to what I said before. A key theme of our nursery education voucher initiative is parental choice, as I have made clear on numerous occasions. We want to put power into parents' hands and give them the means to choose a nursery place for their child that best suits their own circumstances and the child's situation. We do not want the expression of that choice limited by the fact that arrangements to pay grant can be made only in accordance with a local authority strategy. That could deny choice to parents. Subsection (1) of the new clause would certainly do so.

We are putting power into parents' hands because we believe that it is parents who understand best the needs of their child and who know what kind of nursery setting is best for their child. We do not believe that either central government or local government should make that choice.

However, as I have said before, none of this prevents a local authority putting together its early years strategy for expansion of nursery education. None of this prevents local authorities working closely with the private and voluntary sectors. None of this prevents local authorities consulting interested parties before expanding their own provision. Any local education authority can put together a development plan, or a strategy, for a particular element of its provision.

I should like to make clear that there is no need for such provision in the Bill. Furthermore, the amendment would limit and undermine the choice of parents. Therefore, I cannot accept it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, it was with great disappointment that I heard the Minister's words. I almost detected two replies; one from the point of view of his experience as a county councillor and another which sounded like a press briefing on parental choice.

No one is speaking against parental choice. We are in favour of it. I am disappointed about the Government's approach but it would be to little avail to press the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 2 [Delegation]:

Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 30, at end insert—

("(3) Where arrangements are made under section 1 to which subsection (1) above applies, those arrangements shall be such as to ensure that the parent of any child in respect of whose education a grant is made available is advised by the person exercising a function on behalf of the Secretary of State that in the absence of alternative provision being made, the exercise by the parent of a choice not to apply for financial support from monies available by way of grant under this Act represents a choice not to seek nursery education for his child.

(4) The requirements of subsection (3) shall not be considered satisfied unless it is shown that a parent who has failed to seek the benefits of financial support from monies made available by way of grant under this Act has been reminded of his opportunity to do so.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Benjamin Franklin, writing his own epitaph, said that though his body would lie, food for worms, Yet the work itself shall not be lost, For it will, as he believed, appear once more In a new And more beautiful edition, Corrected and amended By its Author!".

Corrected and amended, not by its author but by me after the Report stage, the amendment is briefly resurrected. I hope that this time I get it right.

It means that the voucher agency would be required to carry out a further procedure, such as a telephone call, beyond the normal application and distribution of vouchers in order to remind parents of the consequences of non-application.

I was relieved to hear from the Minister that the voucher agency, Capita, employs, staff at the moment who can translate into 20 languages". His subsequent letter, for which I am also grateful, modified that exuberant 20 to a more sober 15. I was also relieved to hear that his right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office will be considering appropriate translation services in Wales. For those we are grateful.

I understand that the DfEE commissioned the Central Office of Information Research Unit to interview, 201 parents of eligible four year-olds in the four phase one participating boroughs".

The interviews were conducted before the scheme started in the week of 15th April 1996. The purpose of the survey was, to assess the effectiveness of the recent and current publicity campaign, and to provide guidance for the future publicity campaign for the national launch in 1997".

There are more than 16,000 eligible children in the four areas, according to "Countdown to vouchers", in Nursery World of 21st March 1996. If we ignore the small number of four year-olds, twins or triplets, there are likely to be around 16,000 "eligible" parents in the pilot areas. If my sums are correct, that means that only 1.25 per cent. of phase 1 parents were surveyed. Statistically, that is not a convincing sample. I could continue at some length about the survey, which I have studied, but I shall not do so on this occasion. Of those 1.25 per cent. of parents in the four pilot areas, 82 per cent. realised that they were eligible to receive vouchers and 18 per cent. did not. That sounds most creditable, but 18 per cent. of 16,000 is 2,880. Those parents did not know and they are the people in whom we are interested. It is not enough to say that an overwhelming majority did know. We have a duty to search out those who did not.

These figures illustrate that much more work needs to be done to ensure that parents understand this scheme. In accountability terms the voucher agency must make efficient and effective use of this public money. The experience of the scheme so far in phase 1 has shown occasions where this has not always been the case, so I ask the Minister once more, has this issue been properly and fully explored, quantified and costed with Capita Managed Services? If so, what response has been elicited from it about this small percentage that it should be following up? If it has not done so, why has it not done so, and when will it do so? I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, once again I rise in support of this amendment to add a couple of points. There are 18 per cent. of parents who have been proved not to have known what was going on or not to have coped with it very well. When the scheme operates countrywide, how will the agency reach everybody, and what is the cost likely to be? Instead of trying to reach everybody in the same blast of publicity, would it not be better to spend less money on reaching those who prove less responsive than the majority? It seems to me that that would be a more cost-effective way of doing it.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I certainly remember this debate at an earlier stage and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, also remembers it. Having brought forward a defective amendment, he kindly agreed to reflect on its defects. I have to say, with some regret, that the new amendment is little better.

There is no disagreement that it is important that those parents who want to take advantage of the scheme should apply for vouchers for their children and that children should benefit from the opportunities provided. It is also important that schools, nurseries and playgroups know that all parents who want to be, are equipped with vouchers, and that grant funding will flow from that.

But I do not agree with the noble Lord that it is necessary to place on the face of the Bill the requirement that the contractor must explain to parents the need to apply for a voucher and remind them to do so. All those parents of eligible children who appear on the child benefit database were sent an application form. A reminder form was sent to those who had failed to apply a month before the start of term.

The department has mounted, as I mentioned on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, an extensive information campaign in the phase 1 authorities to raise awareness among parents, and we plan to carry out a similar campaign on a national scale in phase 2.

The survey involved 200 parents, a number which the independent research company adjudged was necessary to produce a statistically significant result. So it was their choice. We now know from that survey that most parents who want their child to attend a nursery provider will seek guidance from a local provider, and we have ensured that all providers in the scheme have both general information about the scheme and information about how parents should apply for vouchers. The information we publish for parents stresses the need for them to apply for vouchers and submit them to their chosen provider.

In phase 1 we have demonstrated that the effective ways to contact parents are via the child benefit database, via advertising and via the providers. The amendment proposes one way which I believe is neither sensible nor practical. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment on this occasion.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, as there will never be another occasion, I have remarkably little choice. I have either to withdraw it or seek the view of the House, which I shall not do. It is quite clear that we will not get any more from the Minister or from his department on this point. I simply register that we on these Benches are primarily concerned in opposing, as it is our duty to do. It is our duty to oppose, which does not mean to destroy, this Bill; to go into it in great detail with the Minister.

We are concerned that there should be full compassion and responsible government in the care of those people who are perhaps the least fortunate, the most unlovely in our community. There are people who are eligible for this scheme who do not know it. There are people out there with children who are eligible for this scheme who cannot read or write and who will not tell anybody. We on these Benches press for consideration to be given to them. It is hard. It is difficult. It requires a lot of hard work from government departments and their agencies. May I leave with the Minister the thought that that is the kind of work that good people do? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Requirements]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 40, at end insert— ("(4) Requirements imposed under this section shall include a requirement to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in nursery education provided by an authority or other person to whom a grant is made under section 1.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return yet again to the question of corporal punishment. There is a good deal of confusion because of the Minister's letter not having turned up last time. So I do not make any apology for coming back to this point.

Various Members of the House have encouraged me to table this amendment again because the responses that we have had from the Minister at Committee stage, Report stage and in correspondence are not satisfactory. With respect, they have been both confused and confusing. I shall be brief because the arguments have been set out before.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that corporal punishment is prohibited in all voucher-redeeming institutions. This is not a large step from the Government's current position, which is to prohibit corporal punishment from voucher-bearing children in these institutions. It is a step which the Government have so far declined to take but which we hope to persuade them to take tonight.

The Minister has told us: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to prohibit corporal punishment for all state-funded education". The Department of Health has reiterated its policy that: physical punishment of children has no place in the child care environment". If the Government pursue their current policy it will represent a U-turn on these policies because institutions providing nursery education, both in the private sector and in Children Act institutions, will be permitted to use corporal punishment for non-voucher bearing children, although many of the institutions, as the Minister admitted in his letter to me dated 6th July, receive public funds.

In his replies so far the noble Lord has waltzed around the central issue: do the Government really condone the use of institutional corporal punishment for three and four year-old children? I hope we shall get a clear answer tonight. If they do, they are ignoring not only their own policies but the strongly expressed opinion of all the organisations involved, the NSPCC, Save the Children and a great many institutions which are involved with children's welfare and care, and, of course, international human rights standards and recommendations, which I may leave to others to pursue tonight.

We are asking for a small but principled movement from the Government in line, let me emphasise, with their own policies. If the Government do not wish to protect these very young children from corporal punishment through the use of this Bill, they could give us an assurance that they will do so through regulations issued under the Children Act and the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I hope that the least we can have from the Government tonight is that reassurance. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am glad to speak in support of the amendment, which also stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has returned to a theme for which she has campaigned for some 15 years, to stamp out what is described on the Continent as le vice anglais—the English vice of institutional corporal punishment—to ensure that children in institutions providing early years care education are protected like everybody else.

I have a particular professional interest in that some years ago I represented Karen Warwick in her case against the United Kingdom before the European Commission of Human Rights, which ultimately led to a finding of a breach of Article 3 of the convention: the infliction of degrading corporal punishment on her, on that occasion in a state school.

The Minister has made it clear that it is the policy of the Government, as I am sure that he will make clear yet again in a few minutes, to prohibit corporal punishment in all state-funded education, including education provided in exchange for nursery education vouchers.

As the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear in Committee and as the Minister confirmed on Report, day nurseries are fully publicly-funded. Playgroups also receive public funds. Yet, as I understand the position, under the Government's proposals, non-voucher-bearing children in those institutions will not be protected from corporal punishment.

On Report at col. 245 my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood asked the Minister whether he considered that there was a risk of the Government being in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. His reply then was that he did not believe that the Government would be at risk in that respect. The Minister said: We have always maintained that we will not have corporal punishment within publicly-funded education. It is still open and a number of schools may make use of corporal punishment in the non-maintained sector. That is a matter for them". The Minister pointed out also that there is guidance in the Children Act 1989, which does not support the use of corporal punishment but leaves the decision to individual institutions".—[Official Report, 9/7/96; col. 245.] In my considered view, there is a real risk that the Government will eventually be held to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights unless this amendment is accepted as it stands or unless, at the very least, effective guidance is issued of the kind sought by the noble Baroness, Lady David, when the regulations are made, that corporal punishment should not be used in nursery education provided by a day nursery or by a playgroup receiving public funds.

In its judgment in the case brought by Mrs. Costello-Roberts against the United Kingdom in March 1993, a case concerning school discipline, a narrowly divided European Court of Human Rights decided by five votes to four that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the convention, the article forbidding inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The majority of the Court held, as I say by a wafer-thin majority, on the particular facts of the case, that the punishment had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for a breach of that provision of the convention.

However, the Court pointed out that it had misgivings and said that it was not: to be taken to approve in any way of the retention of corporal punishment as part of the disciplinary regime of a school". In his concurring opinion, Judge Sir John Freeland, the British member of the Court, very significantly—and he had been the agent of the United Kingdom Government in many of the cases brought against them in Strasbourg—said, it must be evident, if only from the divisions of opinion in the Court, that the case is at or near the borderline". The Court agreed with Mrs. Costello-Roberts that the state cannot absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies or individuals. It was observed that, although the treatment complained of was the act of a headmaster of an independent school, nevertheless, it was such as might engage the responsibilities of the United Kingdom under the convention if it proved to be incompatible with Article 3 or Article 8, dealing with lack of respect for private life, including a child's physical and moral integrity. For good measure, that view was supported by the dissenting minority led by the very distinguished president of the Court, Judge Rolv Ryssdal.

In the wake of that judgment in the Costello-Roberts case, Parliament amended the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to ensure that any remaining school using corporal punishment was not engaging in inhumane or degrading treatment. According to the department, as we have heard, it is the Government's policy to prohibit corporal punishment for all state-funded education. But unfortunately, the Government decided on grounds of parental choice that corporal punishment shall remain available for privately-funded pupils in independent schools.

The matter goes further than that. Not only do we have the benefit of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Costello-Roberts, but the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its concluding observations on the UK's initial report about measures taken to comply with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, had expressed concern at the continued legality of corporal punishment in the private sector.

Nor is that all because the very experienced and extremely authoritative Human Rights Committee which oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its comments on the UK's fourth periodic report, recommended that: corporal punishment administered to privately funded pupils in independent schools be abolished". Therefore, it is clear that there is a gap in the current legal regime which gives the appearance that the Government really do, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady David, condone the use of institutional corporal punishment for three and four year-old children if they are not voucher-supported children and if they are in the private sector.

If that is the position, I can only say that in my view, it is likely to lead to further breaches of the European convention and condemnation by the European Court, the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, putting the UK in quite unnecessary and serious breach of its international obligations.

I should be most grateful if the Minister would make quite clear in his reply how exactly the Government consider that they are complying with their international legal obligations in each of those respects. It is not enough simply to say that the Government are satisfied that they are complying. Parliament needs to be told in exactly which respects and how they consider that there is compliance. How can it be compatible with the spirit and the letter of the judgment in Costello-Roberts that non-voucher-bearing children will remain unprotected against corporal punishment?

Will the Government also agree to give at the very least guidance which makes it quite clear that they disapprove of the infliction of corporal punishment on non-voucher-supported children in the private sector of nursery education? As the European Court has made perfectly plain, the Government cannot simply pass the buck to private educational bodies. The Court has made it quite clear that the Government have positive obligations to protect pupils against corporal punishment in those circumstances.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, on the Third Reading of a Bill relating to the funding of nursery education and the borrowing powers of grant-maintained schools, I do not think that it would be appropriate to launch into a long explanation as to why we believe that we are right in terms of our policies and why we feel that we are satisfying the requirements of the European convention.

As I said, the Bill relates to nursery education. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, expressed the matter, the intention behind her amendment is to ban corporal punishment for all children in voucher-redeeming institutions. I believe that I noted her words correctly.

As the noble Baroness will probably be aware, the amendment does not have that effect. Its effect, which is confined to nursery education, as defined by the Bill, can only cover those who would be receiving their funding under the Bill; that is, through vouchers. We cannot take the Bill further to cover the sort of settings which the noble Baroness would like to cover.

I know that the noble Baroness would like to see corporal punishment banned in all daycare and educational settings irrespective of whether state funding is involved. But, equally, she will know, as I made quite clear, that today's debate on corporal punishment must be limited to the scope of the Bill; that is, the prohibition of corporal punishment only in so far as it relates to children funded by nursery education vouchers. The Bill cannot go beyond that. Therefore, it would not be right for me at this stage—dare I say it—on a Third Reading debate to try to answer all the points made by a very distinguished lawyer. I respect the noble Lord's views, but I must tell him that the advice I receive from those who advise the Government is contrary to his. The advice is that we are satisfying the requirements of the European convention.

There is just one small point that I should like to raise with the noble Lord. It relates to the question of non-voucher paying children attending Children Act registered institutions, some of which are subsidised by local authorities. Is that not publicly funded provision? Some playgroups and day nurseries are subsidised by local authorities—usually by the local social services department. As such, the emphasis is very often on daycare provision rather than education. But, as I said before, the Children Act guidance does not support the use of corporal punishment; it leaves decisions about the use of corporal punishment where the child is not in receipt of state-funded education with the parent and the provider. I can go no further. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister moves on, perhaps I may just ask him one simple question. Will the Government at the very least make clear their position that they would not wish corporal punishment to be inflicted in respect of non-voucher children? In other words, while leaving it to the discretion of local providers, will the Minister confirm that in the Government's view it would be undesirable for corporal punishment to be inflicted? That should at least be made clear by the Government.

Lord Henley

My Lords, we have made our view absolutely clear. We wish to ensure that corporal punishment is not administered to children whose nursery places are funded by the nursery voucher scheme. As regards those who are funded in other ways, as I said, that is a matter for the parents and the providers.

However, where I differ from the noble Baroness is how we deliver that objective. The noble Baroness would like to see something on the face of the Bill but, as I made clear earlier, we would prefer to ensure that that objective is secured by making prohibition a requirement of grant. I believe that that method of achieving what we are trying to achieve—indeed, what we are both trying to achieve—is as effective as putting something on the face of the Bill. I say that for no other reason than that I suspect the noble Baroness's amendment would be technically deficient because it has no definition of corporal punishment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that fact. Indeed, when we tried to do that in the proceedings under the Education (No. 2) Bill it amounted to something like two-and-a-half pages of text. To try to get such wording into one small amendment is not the right way forward. Therefore, with the sort of assurances that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, before I give my final answer, can the Minister say whether he has given an assurance that there will be guidance to the effect that the Government are against corporal punishment in any institution where there are children receiving vouchers and, indeed, others who are not?

Lord Henley

My Lords, we have given guidance under the Children Act. I do not want to move away from that sort of guidance. I believe that that guidance would be appropriate in the sort of settings about which we are talking.

Baroness David

My Lords, surely providing guidance under the Children Act extends as far as care and does not really cover the education being given. Am I correct in that assumption?

Lord Henley

Yes, my Lords, that is the case. However, as I made clear, I do not believe that any further guidance would be necessary. Again, I should stress that this is a Third Reading debate. I do not think that I could go any further.

Baroness David

My Lords, I am still most amazed that we cannot have that direct assurance. I am most grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has given me; indeed, it has been extremely helpful. I repeat: I am amazed that we cannot have that straightforward assurance. It is quite extraordinary. This is a matter of principle and, although I am quite certain of the outcome, I am afraid that I must take the opinion of the House.

6.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	McNair, L.
Barnett, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Carlisle, E.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Methuen, L.
Carter, L.	Mishcon, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
David, B.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dubs, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Ripon, Bp.
Falkland, V.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Rochester, L.
Geraint, L.	Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton L	Shepherd, L.
	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hamwee, B,	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Haskel, L.[Teller.]	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Thurso, V.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Tope, L.
Howell, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jeger, B.	Turner of Camden.B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Kilbracken, L.	White, B.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]	Williams of Elvel, L.
Lockwood, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Winston, L
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Demon of Wakefield, B.
Aldington, L.	Dixon-Smith, L.
Annaly, L.	Downshire, M.
Attlee, E.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Balfour, E.	Elton, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Erroll, E.
Bemers, B.	Falmouth, V.
Biddulph, L.	Feldman, L.
Blaker, L.	Ferrers, E.
Blatch, B.	Flather, B.
Boardman, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Bowness, L.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Gisborough, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Goold, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Goschen, V.
Bumham, L.	Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Caithness, E.	Hayhoe, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Henley, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Hertford, M.
Chelmsford, V.	Hesketh, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Hogg, B.
Clanwilliam, E.	Holderness, L.
Coleridge, L.	HolmPatrick, L.
Colwyn, L.	Inglewood, L.
Comwallis, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Courtown, E.	Kenilworth, L.
Cox, B.	Kimball, L.
Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Kinnoull, E.
Crickhowell, L.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Leigh, L.
De L'Isle, V.	Lindsay, E.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Denham, L.	Liverpool, E.

Lucas, L.	Prior, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Rees, L.
Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]	Rennell, L.
	Renton, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.	Renwick, L.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V.	Romney, E.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.
Marlesford, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Merrivale, L.	Seccombe, B.
Monckton of Brenchley, V.	Sharples, B.
Monson, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Mottistone, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Mountevans, L.	Stewartby, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Strange, B.
Murton of Lindisfame, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Napier and Ettrick, L.	Sudeley, L.
Northbourne, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Northesk, E.	Trumpington, B.
O'Cathain, B.	Tugendhat, L.
Palmer, L.	Wedgwood, L.
Pender, L.	Wigram, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Wise, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.52 p.m.

Clause 7 [Power to borrow]:

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("given") to ("but") in line 38, and insert ("only where the Secretary of State or a person to whom he delegates the function is satisfied that the land or buildings concerned are not essential to the functioning of the school concerned);").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name. We debated the whole subject of core assets fairly briefly, it has to be said, at Committee stage, but at rather greater length on Report. By that time the Minister had written a very helpful letter to me, substantial parts of which I quoted at the Report stage and shall not need to do so again.

The Minister has made it clear, both in his letter and again in his reply at Report stage, that the Government believe it is important and they are fully committed to retain essential school assets. The amendment before us today is simply one last attempt to get something onto the face of the Bill that actually recognises the commitment which the Government have already given. That is the purpose of the amendment.

I think we have debated fairly fully the reasons for this and the need to have a clearer understanding of exactly what is meant by core assets. It is therefore not necessary for me to go into it at any greater length tonight.

However, there are two points that I would like to raise. The Minister said in previous debates that he believed it was best that the Funding Agency for Schools should look at applications on a case-by-case basis and deal with them on their merits. In fact, the Bill allows for a generalised consent: which may be given for particular borrowing or for borrowing of a particular class". In another place there was some debate on when generalised consent might operate and the Government indicated that they did not foresee it applying until the new arrangements had bedded down. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how well generalised consent and the need for administrative discretion for the FAS to consider applications from individual schools fit together.

My final point on this subject is one which, again, we considered at Report stage. It is the question of further consultation on the remit letter. I made the point that during the passage of the Bill, particularly in your Lordships' House, it has become much clearer what the Government regard as being core assets and what are not core assets.

Many factors have emerged since the original consultation. I asked the Minister at Report stage whether he would consider having a further brief consultation with interested parties on the content and meaning of the actual remit letter before it is published. I do not want to press the Minister too hard. It is only a few days since he undertook to give such a consideration, but I wonder in which direction that consideration might be moving. I urge upon him that it can only be helpful to clarify some of these points before the letter is published rather than to have them left unclear after publication. On that basis, I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we support this amendment. All I would add to the points made comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is the question of whether the FAS is reasonably placed, in terms of geography and resources, to be able to look in detail at applications from individual schools; and whether it is not also important, from the point of view of those schools, for it to issue guidance directly to the schools on the sort of remit that would be given on this matter in order to help them frame applications which are likely to be approved and not to submit applications which are unlikely to be approved.

Perhaps I may reiterate and strengthen the point about the need for further consultation on this matter. We are not seeking to regulate for every detail. We are not seeking to put obstacles in the way. But we do believe it is important that everyone is clear about the circumstances in which the provisions in the Bill would be applied, were it to become an Act.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I do not think it would be necessary or desirable for me at this time to rehearse all the arguments that I went through at Report stage on the main part of the noble Lord's amendment. I believe that we are both looking in the same direction but have different ways of going about it. I think it would serve little purpose to rehearse my arguments again other than to say that I think we can agree to disagree.

However, the second effect of the amendment is something which I ought to address in that it would prevent the funding agency from consenting to classes of borrowing. As the noble Lord made clear, this is not something that we have debated before and I would like to try to explain our position and to give some reassurances to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. This will be covered in the remit letter which my right honourable friend intends to send to the funding agency.

In the first instance, the Funding Agency for Schools will give its consent to borrowing only on a case-by-case basis. This is to monitor borrowing in its early stages and to make doubly sure, while borrowing is new, that schools do not overstretch themselves and that publicly-funded assets are protected. So initially consent will not be given by particular class.

Once the arrangements are well-established, however, it should be possible to introduce more flexible arrangements whereby consent would be given by particular class. This might be consent for loans below a certain value or for particular types of loan.

I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to tie up schools in red tape by requiring them to seek consent for every loan just to reglaze the science block or to put up a bike shed. But the Government are committed to cutting red tape and we think that the proposed arrangements for borrowing provide the right balance.

To underline our position, consenting to borrowing by particular class is a very useful flexibility which will be used only where it is appropriate. And in the first instance consent, as I said, will be given only on a case-by-case basis until we have gained experience. This is in no way intended to circumvent the necessary protection for schools and their assets which the Secretary of State's consent provides.

The noble Lord also asked whether there would be further consultation. I think I made it quite clear that there has already been a great deal of consultation. I made it clear that I thought consultation was possibly coming out of our ears more generally speaking, in terms of departmental policy. I am not sure there is a case for further consultation on this issue, but I have no doubt that many interested parties will probably still seek to submit their views. They would be taken note of in drafting the remit letter.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked us whether we were satisfied that the Funding Agency for Schools had sufficient geographical cover and sufficient resources to perform its job effectively. We are so satisfied and if the Funding Agency for Schools were not so satisfied, I am sure that it would be the first to let us know. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able on this occasion to withdraw this amendment.

7 p.m.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; I am also deeply disappointed by it. I had hoped that as we come almost to the end of this process we had at last found an amendment which he might feel able to accept. It is sad that even at this late stage we shall not achieve that small amount of consensus.

On the question of further consultation, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. In requesting that further consultation we are not seeking great detail and over- regulation in the remit letter. We seek clarity. I have acknowledged on previous occasions that consultation has taken place, but it occurred before the passage of this Bill. Much has emerged during the passage of the Bill, in the other place and in particular here. It would be common sense to consult with interested parties, in particular the funding agency and the local authority associations, on the draft remit letter. Whether or not they agree with it is not an issue at that stage. It is to ensure simply that those bodies understand the measures that they think it is clear, and that it cannot be drafted in a way to make it clearer. I do not believe that that would be a lengthy and formal consultation process but a necessary, comparatively informal and quick process which could well avoid much greater difficulties at a later stage when it is harder to deal with them. I hope that the Minister's consideration of this point is not finally concluded and that his mind is not finally set upon it. I shall not press him further on that point, nor shall I press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [Orders and regulations]:

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:

Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 11, line 36, leave out ("first") and insert ("second").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that all noble Lords will pay close attention to this highly technical amendment. I shall say this once, and once only. Schedule 3, paragraph 9 amends the local authority capping provisions to take account of local authority budgets following the removal of resources to fund the voucher scheme. Local authorities will not know at the start of a financial year what their expenditure will be because voucher income is not known. Authorities may exceed their cap if education is provided for more children than expected.

Paragraph 9(3) makes separate provision for the first financial year, and either or both of the next two financial years. I hope that is quite clear. The intention is that the first financial year should commence on 1st April 1997 when the "roll out" phase starts. The first financial year is tied to the use of Clause 1 of the Bill; that is, the grant-making powers.

It appears that the Government wish to use Clause 1 to fund inspections of private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1 authorities this financial year, 1996–97. As the Bill stands, if Clause 1 is used this financial year, then the capping provisions would also start, whereas the intention is that they should first apply in the following year. The government amendment ties the start of the capping provisions to the first financial year in which local authorities are funded, and not the first year in which Clause 1(1) is used.

There is a problem with the government amendment as it will make the Bill inconsistent in our view as between Schedule 3 and Clause 1(3), which the Government have not changed in the Lords. The Government should uphold the Bill rather than introduce ambiguities. The government amendment raises a doubt about the Government's view of the Lords' amendment which is new Clause 1(3).

My amendment achieves the technical objective of the Government's amendment without causing this inconsistency. It has the effect of renumbering the financial years for which the capping provisions apply and so enables inspections to continue after 1st April 1997. This, I submit, will leave the Bill in tidier shape on leaving your Lordships' House than the government amendment would, and it would not bring inspections to a halt. My amendment will make the Bill internally consistent. I hope that that is all clearly understood. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

My Lords, all I can say is that I am grateful that the complexities of local authority finance and capping arrangements did not come up at one o'clock in the morning at Committee stage; at seven o'clock it is bad enough. I intend briefly to explain why we do not feel that the noble Lord's amendment is appropriate. I ask if he would bear with me and listen to my words carefully. Then, if I may—I appreciate the amendments are not grouped—I shall speak to my amendment. That might be for the ease of the House, and we can then formally move the amendment later.

The noble Lord's amendment would delay the operation of the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 until the second year in which grants were made to providers in any sector. As I said, I shall shortly move the government amendment. I shall go into that in greater detail.

Like the government amendment, this amendment attempts to ensure that the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 will not be brought into force too early as a result of payment of grant under Clause 1 of this Bill to private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1.

However, unlike the government amendment, this amendment is not linked specifically to the changes in local authority funding which will make the capping power necessary. This means that the proper functioning of the capping power will continue to be dependent on the nature and timing of payments to providers in sectors other than the maintained sector.

The formulation of the government amendment, on the other hand, avoids all risk of the power being brought into force at a time when local authority funding should not be affected, and so allows for far greater flexibility in determining appropriate payment arrangements for providers in all sectors.

I shall now speak to my amendment. Paragraph 9 makes the necessary adjustments to existing capping legislation to reflect changes in local authority funding as a result of nursery education grants.

It is intended to provide for a reduction in local authorities' base budgets for capping purposes to reflect changes in their funding for four year-olds as it is switched from revenue support grant to grant under Clause 1 of this Bill. It is not a general widening of the existing capping regime, and will not disadvantage local authorities. The government amendment would provide that the changes to capping limits can take place in the first year in which nursery education grant under Clause 1 is paid to any local authority.

I know how much importance the House attaches to early inspection. In order to inspect phase 1 private and voluntary sector providers under Schedule 1 to this Bill, it will be necessary to use the grant-making powers under Clause 1 to fund those providers. But without the amendment to paragraph 9, which we propose, making grants to private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1 would bring sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 into force a year too early. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as I said, would delay the operation of the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) by one year. However, it does not link the capping power specifically to the payment of nursery education grant to local authorities and the resultant changes to their funding, as my own amendment does.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 applies only to local authorities. We have already seen that the need to pay grant under Clause 1 to some private and voluntary sector providers in this financial year has made this technical amendment to the capping power necessary. For the avoidance of any future doubt or complications it is best to tie the operation of the capping power to the timing of changes in local authority funding which will make it necessary. This government amendment will ensure that the capping power refers to the first year of full implementation of the voucher scheme, as we have always intended. This will be the case irrespective of the year in which the voucher scheme is fully implemented and irrespective of any previous funding arrangements for private and voluntary sector providers. I hope that that explanation as to why we believe our amendment is better than the noble Lord's amendment is comprehensible to him. I appreciate that it is rather technical stuff at this time of night. However, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment in favour of the government amendment.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, it is transpicuously clear for the moment. I cannot believe that I shall remember it with anything like that detail tomorrow morning when I read what the noble Lord said and what I have said in the official record. It seems to me that the government amendment may give extra flexibility but it has not addressed the Clause 1(3) issue, and that still remains. We feel that our amendment does exactly the same as the government amendment; but the glory of ours is that it comes for free. However, I understand that the Minister may feel that there is no such thing as a free amendment. In the light of that, and hoping that his officials and our advisers will have a careful look at this matter to see whether we have it completely right this time—I agree with the Minister that it is a very technical matter, best fought out in Committee rather than at this late stage of the Bill—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 11, line 36, after ("made") insert ("to any authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I give an assurance, however, that I will examine again very carefully the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in relation to the allegedly superior virtues of his amendment. I believe that we have got ours right. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

We have now completed our consideration of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. It is a short and straightforward Bill. Those noble Lords who have devoted so much time and attention to rather larger education Acts in recent years may not regret its size. Your Lordships have, nonetheless, put a good deal of care and attention into scrutiny of the Bill, in the finest tradition of this House.

At Second Reading of the Bill I had one main message that I wished to convey to the House. The Bill builds on the themes that have underpinned all the Government's education reforms: choice, diversity and quality. Although modest in size, the Bill will be far-reaching in effect—far-reaching for parents, who will have new and unprecedented choice in respect of their four year-olds' education; and important, too, for governing bodies of GM schools, which will have far greater flexibility to address their schools' capital needs.

It has been a disappointment that so much time has been spent on efforts to delay the implementation of our nursery education scheme. That has been an unfortunate approach. It will be particularly unfortunate for parents whose four year-olds may lose out on nursery education as a result. Many noble Lords mentioned the number of letters received from parents. I have received similar representations and I do not discount parents' anxieties.

However, we now have the results of an independent study of the views of parents in the phase 1 areas. We know, for example, that six in 10 parents have rated the scheme positively. The positive rating for Norfolk was a very heartening 87 per cent. We know that 72 per cent. of parents said that they found the application forms very easy to use; and almost all those who had used their vouchers had experienced no difficulty. The picture is brighter than has sometimes been painted.

I was accused earlier today of being somewhat unmoving in my acceptance of amendments. The Bill has been distinguished by its examination by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I am most grateful to him and his committee for their constructive contribution to our proceedings. Following the committee's helpful report, we have provided the example for the amount of grant that is to be paid under the nursery scheme to be put in regulations. We did move. There have been other amendments. Government amendments have been made in response to concerns both in this House and the other place. We amended the Bill to meet concerns expressed by local education authorities on the question of admissions to reception classes. We have included a requirement for all providers outside the maintained sector to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and am sad that he was not able to be here later on this afternoon. He brought those matters to our special attention. Special educational needs is one of the areas in which this House has developed a special expertise.

I end by offering my thanks to all those who have advised me, both here and in the department. I offer my thanks to my Whip, my noble friend, Lady Miller. I am afraid she is ill today, and I hope she returns feeling better. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young and others on my own Benches. I pay tribute to all the work put in by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and all their team; to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and their team. I also pay tribute to those on the Cross-Benches, and to the right reverend Prelate.

Our debates have been by and large conducted with an air of general good humour and without acrimony in a field where, I appreciate, feelings are very strong indeed. That in itself is some achievement. Perhaps I may now say goodbye to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, as I prepare for a different form of nursery. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)

7.15 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, let it be clearly understood as we come to the end of this debate and our consideration of the Bill that we on these Benches are wholly, totally and utterly opposed to nursery vouchers in every form in which they might be put forward. We consider them to be a waste of effort, a waste of time and a waste of money. Nothing that has been said throughout all the stages of this Bill will convince me, or has even come anywhere near convincing me, to the contrary.

That having been said (if your Lordships will permit the passive participle to be used in this way), I have a lot of people to thank and I will do so quickly. There were a number of noble Lords who spoke on our side of this argument. I refer to the fearless noble Baroness, Lady Farrington; to the determined and dauntless noble Baroness, Lady David; to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who always appears to come straight from Moscow, sometimes with snow on his boots; to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who gave us the Scottish dimension; to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who once described herself in this House as "a retread". We found her absolutely tireless!

I was most impressed with the timely and thoughtful interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; and by the precise and perfect professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; the noble Lord, Lord Parry, was a great help, bringing with him all the power of Pembroke. There was the doughty noble Lord, Lord Dormand; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal; and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.

Among our colleagues—and on this occasion our allies—on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I was staggered by the sheer knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. It was a pleasure to listen to them, and I have learnt a great deal. I am used to the formidable contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I wish we had heard more from her. There was the solid good sense of the noble Viscount, Lord Addington; the brief but trenchant intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore; the fearsome forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; and the fine analytic mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

Among the Cross-Benchers, we had the aid of the philosopher, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock; the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, with a lifetime in education; the strange alliance of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas and the noble Viscount, Lord St Davids. I should never have thought it could happen, but Wales is the better for it. We benefited from the thoughtful interventions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who watches over far more than simply Church matters. I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), each of them careful, cheerful champions of special educational needs; and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who helped us a great deal at the beginning and whose wisdom we have missed in these later stages.

Some noble Lords were not quite as supportive of us as I could have wished. There was the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, always independent but quite frequently helpful; and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who always listens and makes up his own mind. There was the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whose support the Government should be truly grateful whenever they get it. They do not always get it, but they got it on this occasion, and we got it, too—in the neck! And there were lesser interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain; the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe; the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; the noble Lord, Lord Bowness; the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, a fellow academic who contributed very much as a thinker; the noble Lord, Lord Elton; the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, whose expert knowledge adds so much to our education debates; and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. To all, I offer my grateful thanks.

My thanks go, too, to the organisations which have advised us: the AMA, especially Mr. Damien Welfare, who did so much to help us; the ALG; the ACC; the NUT; the SEC; and CASE, the coalition of children's charities. I thank too, all the correspondents. There were well over 700 letters to me alone. Finally, I thank our researchers, Jessica Bawden and Clare Cozens, who worked indefatigably.

I turn to the noble Lord the Minister, who has been here from start to finish—from the beginning of Second Reading, even until now, alone very often on the Bench, apart from his Whip. He has taken the full burden of this Bill. When I thank him my mind is drawn to some words of a writer whom he may care to try to identify, if he cannot already do so straightaway: I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed … where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat". The noble Lord has endured the dust and heat. That particular passage ends: that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary". In that sense I have certainly tried to purify the noble Lord. I thank him for his patience and courtesy. I apologise for any inconvenience that we may have caused him and I hope that any further troubles that he may have this week will be little ones.

Lord Tope

My Lords, not for the first time I have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and I think to myself, "Now follow that". The only way I can compete with him on this occasion perhaps is to read out the names of all the parents who have written to me during the passage of this Bill. But I shall spare your Lordships.

I started the process of this Bill during the Second Reading debate by stating very strongly the Liberal Democrat commitment not just to a high priority but to the highest priority for the funding of early years learning and increased provision for nursery education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want it. It is therefore appropriate that I end on the same note and reiterate that very strong commitment from my party. If I thought that the Bill would in any way help toward that, I might at least at this stage of the conclusion be willing to wish it at least some qualified success. But I share the view, so strongly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that this Bill and the scheme it will allow will not do it. It will be likely to raise expectations which too often will not be fulfilled. Above all, it is almost the least effective way of targeting resources to increasing provision for early years learning. For those reasons, we feel that fundamentally the Bill and the scheme that it will allow are flawed.

We have sought during its passage through this House to make it a less bad Bill. I think we have succeeded in one important area. If phase 1 is the success that the Minister believes, the Government have nothing to fear from the evaluation. The evaluation presumably will demonstrate that; we shall accept that we were wrong; and the scheme will go ahead. If he believes that, he should be content with our amendment. It is not my view of what an evaluation will show; nor do I believe that it will be the best way to extend early years learning.

We have had very long sessions on what the Minister quite rightly described as a very short Bill. I should like to feel that apart from a few important areas it will leave us as a better Bill. But I fear that it does not. It is better for the amendment which your Lordships agreed; it is certainly better for the amendment on special needs which the Minister introduced. We all welcome that and, since I have not spoken before on that subject, let me put on record that I and my party welcome it. That makes it a less bad Bill but it does not make it a good Bill. Most of all, I regret an opportunity lost.

Having said that, I move on to my thanks. I should not dream of competing—I do not think I could—with the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I may check at a later stage, perhaps during the summer holidays, whether he missed anyone from his list, but I doubt it. I assume that he did not and so I simply join him in expressing all the thanks that he offered to all those people. I particularly want to thank and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Thomas, who has given me great support on all occasions, sometimes under difficult circumstances for her—at Committee stage under difficult circumstances for me. I did at least learn that a nine-hour Committee stage is best not undertaken immediately after getting off a plane from China. At one stage in the evening my noble friend Lady Thomas thought that I had been resting my eyes for rather too long and she advised me to go out and take a walk in the fresh air. As always, I took her advice and it was beneficial. Of course I want to thank my colleagues who have contributed, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Addington, whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris, recently promoted, for his help and support.

I join the noble Lord in thanking the associations which have advised us very well indeed. This has been the first Bill that I have been able to take right through from start to finish. Certainly I appreciated the help and advice from the local authority associations. I also pay tribute to and thank my research assistant in our Whips Office—Carolyn Rampton, for whom this was also her first Bill from start to finish and so we learned together, I hope successfully.

Perhaps I may conclude with the Minister. If I had the time, I should wish to count up the number of times that he said, "My Lords, this is an unnecessary amendment". At times, it is a little dispiriting to be told that on amendment after amendment. Nevertheless, on the whole he has treated us with great patience and some tolerance and sought to explain—not always convincingly, I must say—why amendments are unnecessary. He told us earlier that it was possible he might not be with us today. I am pleased that he is with us. I hope that now the matter is concluded, he will not have to wait very much longer before having an even more personal interest in the subject matter before us.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, before we take leave of the Bill, I rise briefly to add my thanks to those already expressed in your Lordships' House. I have expressed from these Benches my hesitations about various aspects of the Bill and feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we have made modest amendments which have improved it. I join him in expressing my appreciation of the amendments on special educational needs which have been moved and agreed.

I enjoyed taking part in the debates of the Bill. I cannot possibly match the comprehensiveness of the thanks which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has already offered—biblical in their range, but we have noticed that the noble Lord is frequently biblical in his references and we are grateful to him for it. I offer a word of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, not least for her untiring championship of church schools, which she mentioned on many occasions throughout the debates. Finally, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his patience and courtesy. I join others in hoping that the rest of his week is a highly enjoyable one.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.