Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 May 1996 vol 572 cc326-63

3.5 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [The Scottish Qualifications Authority]:

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 19, at end insert (", from amongst persons nominated by, or by bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of, the Universities of Scotland, education authorities, colleges of further education, institutions of further education, central institutions, educational advisers, teachers employed in educational establishments and grant aided and independent schools").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister back from his recent visit to Aberdeen where he was no doubt doing his best to help to preserve an endangered species—and I hope not too successfully.

Your Lordships will realise that Amendment No. 1 is of historic and, indeed, perhaps pre-historic importance as it makes reference to central institutions which, unfortunately perhaps, now no longer exist. There may be some who think that it would be better that they should continue to exist, but they do not.

The part of the Bill dealing with the establishment of the Scottish qualifications authority is non-controversial. Indeed, I believe that it is welcomed broadly throughout Scotland and the education sector in Scotland. But there is one difficulty with it which the amendment seeks to correct; that is, that the Bill as presently drafted leaves completely undefined the composition of the authority.

That is important because it is of vital interest that the Scottish qualifications authority enjoys the confidence of all those involved in the examination process in Scotland and that there is confidence in the integrity and robustness of its deliberations and outcomes. Indeed, when this issue was put to the Minister, Mr. Robertson, when we were collecting evidence in Glasgow, he made the observation: I think the reassurance that you are seeking there would be given in Debates in the Committee stage both in your House and in my own". When we discussed the clause in Committee, the Minister was only able to go so far as to say that the Secretary of State intended to appoint to the authority those people who would bring: a breadth of experience covering a broad range of interests".— [Official Report, 23/4/96; col. CWH5.]

That falls somewhat short of the need to ensure that those involved with education authorities, universities, further education, local authorities and all those who have a direct interest in the robustness and integrity of the examination system are incorporated into the Scottish qualifications authority so that they will have confidence that its deliberations are purposeful and effective.

I hope that the Minister will be able to go further today and give some indication that the authority will have a degree of structure and will not be as unstructured and open as the Bill presently indicates. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, the amendment is one of a type that we have all seen before and has been put forward for the simple reason that what it proposes is generally necessary. We are trying to get some support for the new body and that means that it must be respected by those people whom it is supposed to be representing; namely, the educational establishment in Scotland. It is to be hoped that something similar to the amendment in the Bill would give greater authority and weight to the new examination authority so that those concerned will be able to give more authority to the relevant qualifications, which is something that everyone needs. All we are saying is that those people who actually know what is going on in education should be consulted. That is all that lies behind the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the proposal or, indeed, something very like it.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I am rather intrigued by the amendment. Although I have never managed to take part in the proceedings on the Bill up to now, I am surprised that, in specifying the persons who should be included, the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment have not considered the appointment of someone from industry. I believe that in future there needs to be a slightly closer connection between industry and education than has been the case in the past. The other aspect which rather surprises me about the amendment is the fact that the noble Lords concerned have included "the Universities of Scotland" in the text. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Bill has nothing to do with the university side of education in Scotland.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the matter has already been well discussed on three occasions. It was discussed on Second Reading, when the Scottish Select Committee took evidence in Glasgow, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned, and, indeed, in Committee. The advantage of this new House of Lords procedure, which adds an extra stage to the consideration of Scottish legislation—a stage which takes place in Scotland—is that noble Lords will have an even better opportunity than before to hear what groups and individuals in Scotland want. Moreover, evidence can be placed on the record. In my view, in the case of this amendment, that has been extremely helpful.

The amendment is in fact the same as one discussed in Committee. However, it is no worse for that because there was no opportunity to vote on that occasion. Therefore, I do not in any way chide noble Lords for tabling it again. If passed, the amendment would still allow the Secretary of State to choose and appoint most of the members of the body. I should tell my noble friend who has just spoken that the nominees would not be those appointed; they would be a number of people from whom the Secretary of State would make appointments. In that case, it is perhaps one degree better than my noble friend supposed.

If the amendment were passed, it would still mean that the choice of the Secretary of State would be limited to people nominated by bodies listed on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend said, the list proposed still does not include—as was the case with the amendment tabled in Committee—anyone with experience as an employer or indeed in industry; nor, for that matter, does it include the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which I should have thought would, just like employers, have an interest in how young people are qualified for work in Scotland.

Moreover, if even the principle of the amendment were adopted, members of the new authority, having been nominated by a certain body, would tend to see themselves as representatives. As Mr. Miller, who has experience as a chairman of the existing bodies which will come together under the new authority—namely, the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC—told us in evidence, that tends to make for less good and balanced discussion than does a group of individuals appointed because of their wide background of experience. That is a better way than forming a body from nominees.

In evidence, various groups made plain to the Select Committee the importance that they placed on the membership of the body. That was extremely understandable and was something that was very much emphasised. Indeed, great emphasis was placed on the need for the Secretary of State to consult on the matter. Clearly it is crucial that the membership should be properly balanced and that the views of those with an interest should be taken fully into account in deciding the membership.

As a result of discussion of the amendment in Committee on 23rd April, my noble friend the Minister put on record (at col. CWH 6 and 7 of Hansard) the fact that there will be significant consultation. My noble friend also said—and here we read between the lines—that, local authorities have an interest that will require to be properly represented".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; col. CWH 6.] I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will not press the amendment. However, if he decides to do so, I hope that the House will not accept it. When he replies, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us—he may think that this is a naughty question, but it is one that I believe to be relevant—whether, should his party be elected to government at the general election, it would return to the system that was used before 1979, when important bodies like the new SQA were put in the hands of the nominees of interested bodies rather than those chosen by the Secretary of State of the day? I have been a member of many such bodies and I know how that system worked. I trust that we shall not see a return to it. That is one reason why I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend and neighbour so that the voice of Angus can perhaps be heard in the House this afternoon. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and what he said made me think about many such amendments which are installed or, although I do not believe the noble Lord used the word, put on the face of the Bill. The proposed amendment has one particular danger, in that any group or organisation might feel deprived or left out if it were not included. Indeed, such a group or organisation might be upset if the amendment were accepted. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour, but I wonder whether both he and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would consider glancing at Clause 5 of the Bill. It seems to me that subsections (1) and (2) of that clause will certainly cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, without necessarily ring-fencing those persons who might or might not be fitted to give advice.

My noble friend Lord Balfour made some excellent remarks. I did follow the previous proceedings on the Bill, but I have one query regarding Scottish qualifications. Are such qualifications applicable only to young people under 16? Alternatively, are they applicable to someone like myself? I am happy to declare an interest as I am a member of the chartered accountants of Scotland. Considering those among us who have taken qualifications of that nature, I certainly think that Clauses 2 and 5 would cover all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. However, if I am totally wrong in that respect, perhaps my noble friend the Minister can put me right.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, my concern about the amendment is probably the same as that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I say that because in legislation, where, as here, there is a list of people who may nominate persons to be considered by the Secretary of State, is it not the case that any organisation not included is thereby excluded? Therefore, such a provision could be rather restrictive.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)

My Lords, I am grateful for the clear explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when moving the amendment. I am also grateful to him for the welcome that he extended to me on my return from Aberdeen. However, I should point out to the noble Lord—although I am sure he realises it—that we are not an endangered species; indeed, we are in good heart and our numbers are strong.

In the Moses Room I assured the Committee of the intention to consult widely before making appointments to the SQA. I am happy to confirm that assurance today to the House. It may be helpful if I repeat the words that my noble friend Lady Carnegy recalled. Local authorities have an interest in this matter that will require to be properly represented on the SQA. I hope that it is obvious to all noble Lords that there are certain organisations which would probably be consulted by the Secretary of State before appointments were made to the SQA. CoSLA would probably be one of the principal consultees, as would the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Colleges, the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, and the STUC, which is also an important source of advice. My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to its omission from the list. The Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce also springs to mind. We have given an assurance as regards consultation and a number of bodies will probably be included. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, made the vital point that in specifying a list one automatically excludes others. I hope that I have reassured those who have been worried about this matter since the Committee stage.

The SQA will be an important new public body and it is vital that individuals of the right calibre and mix of skills and experience are appointed to its board of management. In order to achieve that, we shall consult widely and take full account of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee and the code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The range of bodies will certainly include the interests currently recognised within the existing membership of the SEB and SCOTVEC, as I indicated.

This goes beyond the list suggested in the amendment and embraces also employer interests which we consider equally important. My noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out the importance of industry. Noble Lords cannot seriously suggest that employers do not have an interest in a qualified workforce. I am sure noble Lords will agree that employers have a vital and particular interest in the SQA's role in work-related and work-based qualifications. We also see merit in going beyond those currently represented; for instance, to consider the interests of parents.

The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, expressed concern at an earlier stage that a requirement for names suggested in consultation to be scrutinised by a selection panel would make the consultation meaningless. I do not believe that to be so. The purpose of the consultation is to provide a field of names from which members can be selected. The involvement of a selection panel, including independent members, as required by the Commissioner for Public Appointments will, on the contrary, add value to the process. I am also happy to repeat my assurance, made in Committee, that the consultation process will be significant in the final composition of the SQA.

I recognise, however, that representation on the authority for particular groups is behind much of what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, put to the House today. As I explained in Committee, echoed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, we do not believe that an approach based on guaranteed constituencies is appropriate or indeed necessary. We remain firmly of that view. I cannot therefore give assurances that specific organisations will supply one or more members. However, I have given categoric assurances that it is our intention that the members of the authority will have the breadth of experience and knowledge necessary to cover a broad range of interests. In this context, I recognise the helpful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at Committee stage, and indeed today. In bringing to bear his experience as Vice Principal of the University of Aberdeen he pointed out that the authority needed to carry the confidence of its customers. We entirely agree. We endorse that view and would expect the composition of the authority to reflect the interests of its main customer groups. This of course would include further and higher education, schools, local authorities and employers.

However, that does not mean that we can accept the amendment. It is too narrow, and it excludes the interests of industry, employers and parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, it also includes "central institutions", a term which no longer has statutory significance. I do not believe therefore that the interests of those who will use the services of SQA would be best served by restricting the scope of the Secretary of State to appoint its members. Rather I feel that by allowing flexibility a broader range of relevant interests will be covered and indeed represented on the authority. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, we want balance and consultation, and we want to reflect the views of those who have an interest in the matter. I wish to reassure my noble friend Lord Lyell that as regards age the SQA is totally flexible. One cannot be too old as regards the SQA. In the light of the reassurances and the clarification I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. The object of the amendment was to try to ensure that the relevant groups which have a real interest in the work of the authority are incorporated into the authority. I hear what the Minister has said and I accept it. It was a helpful reply, and it goes most of the way to meeting our concerns. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that when this side changes places with the side of the noble Baroness, any organisations we establish will be broadly represented and—who knows?—she may even find herself on one of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Accreditation function]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 3, after ("function") insert ("of accrediting qualifications").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. There was a full debate about the accrediting function of the SQA at the Committee stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for explaining clearly the background to the amendments which I intend moving today. I record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Stockton for contributing to the prominence which this issue has commanded during the parliamentary process.

I assured noble Lords in Committee that the arrangements set out in the Bill would put on a statutory basis the current arrangements successfully undertaken by SCOTVEC. This change provides all necessary assurance to customers of SCOTVEC about the approach to be taken by SQA. To put beyond doubt that the Secretary of State's direction-making power will apply to the accreditation committee, I undertook to move an amendment. This amendment makes the necessary adjustment to the Bill. The amendment also makes clear that the accreditation committee is set up for the purpose only of accrediting qualifications. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Secretary of State's directions to SQA]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4: Page 5, line 11, at end insert— ("(1A) The Secretary of State may give to the Accreditation Committee directions of a general or specific nature and it shall be the duty of the Accreditation Committee to comply with such directions."). Page 5, line 12, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 23 [Grants for education of children under school age]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5: Leave out Clause 23.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was originally moved by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford in Committee. We take it extremely seriously, as the Minister will recollect. Our basic point is that no one we can find in Scotland, other than the few people who support the party opposite—and not even all of them—believe that the voucher scheme is a wise or good way of improving the provision of education for under-fives. Local authorities will be at a great disadvantage if they assume that they will have the same number of children in the nursery schools. They make arrangements for staff and accommodation on the basis of the £1,100 that will be given as a voucher for the children going to the school.

We have still not had an answer from the Minister to the important point put by my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. It is a simple point, and I believe that it encompasses the whole argument. For example, two children go to a local authority nursery school. One lady decides that she is able to top up the £1,100 and transfer the child to an approved, private nursery school. Having spent a great deal of money organising staff, accommodation, the apparatus for the morning milk break, and so on, for the children, the local authority will be left with those costs still to pay off, although it will not have the same number of children going to the school.

We believe that the provision will be extremely divisive. My noble friend spoke about two children going together daily to a nursery school who are suddenly split up, one going home at lunch-time, the other attending a private nursery school all day until three or four o'clock in the afternoon. Therefore, at a very early age those children would be separated and feel that there was a difference between them; and that is obviously not good.

I do not wish to spend time on the issue. We went into it in great detail at Committee stage. We have had representations from almost every educational body and involved parent group in Scotland. I can only repeat to the Minister that no one wants the scheme. I can say quite positively that even if the scheme were in full operation by the time that the Government change, it will certainly not be implemented or continued by this side of the House.

We have had no answer from the Minister on these specific points. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, when evidence was taken in Scotland, there was indifference from everyone other than those proposing the scheme, as the noble Lord said. The scheme does not have great support. It was called bureaucratic, wasteful and divisive. There was no support for the measure in the evidence. Those who run private nursery schools managed indifference. With that degree of support from those who will use such a scheme, I suggest that there is a strong case for getting rid of the provision.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I believe that this is a wrecking amendment. It would remove the voucher scheme from the Bill. It would take the guts out of Part II of the Bill and would remove the proposed new parental involvement in children's nursery education.

I was surprised that the amendment was accepted on the Marshalled List at Committee stage. I am even more surprised at Report stage when noble Lords have the ability to divide the House. It seems to me a highly unsuitable proposal in this unelected House, in particular since the Bill has not yet been through the House of Commons.

The objections of the two parties opposite to the proposed voucher scheme have been well and fully argued at each stage of the Bill. It is true that when various bodies gave evidence in Glasgow, few supported the principle. They seemed fearful of the change that the scheme might bring. I was far more fearful before discussion on the Bill began than I am now, having seen the detail. The scheme seems highly workable.

I believe that those on the Front Benches opposite have a prejudice against giving influence to parents in the education of their children. They have a prejudice against allowing parents a direct effect where new or extended nursery provision is established. They are clearly prejudiced against allowing parents to affect the quality of what is provided through their own choice; and prejudiced, too, against extending what public money can provide by bringing private money into partnership with public money.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was worried. He gave an example of where a parent might top up the voucher to a value which would enable the child to go to a private nursery. He asked what that would do to the local authority's planning. Does it not occur to him that there may be private nurseries about which parents are not satisfied? They may wish their children to attend local authority nursery education. The movement can be both ways. That is what choice is about.

The room for manoeuvre for local authorities in their funding of nurseries is great because a large amount of the money spent at present on nurseries will remain with the local authorities. The local authorities will have flexibility. Only a proportion of their expenditure will be passed by the voucher to the parent to choose where he or she spends that money. It does not seem to me to be a problem, although I understand that it is a fear enunciated by councillors because at present local authorities plan with considerable certainty. Virtually all nursery provision in its area is in the hands of the local authority.

I believe that if this House is to remain a scrutinising Chamber (if it is allowed to remain at all) its duty is not to remove the guts of a Bill—not to remove the main purpose of a large part of the Bill. Whatever the lack of information about the voucher scheme and satisfaction as regards whether it is designed to work well, I hope that under no circumstances will noble Lords agree that this clause does not stand part of the Bill.

Lord Sempill

My Lords, having been present at the Scottish Select Committee in Glasgow, I believe that the oral evidence, especially in relation to the voucher scheme, has to be accorded the respect of this House. The scheme is unpopular and, more importantly, is deemed unworkable. However, that view may change depending on the outcome of the four pilot tests.

Strong reservations were voiced about the length of time allocated to these tests, especially in view of the Government's intention to launch the system a year after the tests have started. Representations showed that almost all local authorities are opposed to the scheme in one way or another. Concern was expressed regarding the quality and standards of the education which might be supplied by new providers. The system was criticised for being too bureaucratic. The amount of £1,100 was considered insufficient, especially in regard to children with special needs.

There is also an absence of a clear curricular framework and, as has already been mentioned, the scheme has been seen as socially divisive. A survey of 377 primary schools carried out by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council showed that 55 per cent. had used local authority nursery schools. That compared favourably with the 55.9 per cent. of all four year-olds in local authority nurseries, as measured by the Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin. The survey showed that 77 per cent. would have opted for local authority nurseries as their ideal choice, the problem being availability of the local facility, not lack of choice.

Both Lothian and Fife have adequate provision and consequently have a high percentage of four year-olds at their schools. The scheme does not cater for that lack of facility in other areas of Scotland. I grant that it gives parental choice—which I assume is the Government's intention—which will help to stimulate private investment in the provision of new pre-school facilities. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the numbers stack up. Less densely populated areas will not attract new providers, and that is where the lack of pre-school facility is most evident. If 55 per cent. of all children receive pre-school education, I should have thought that the proposed extra investment of £30 million should be used to address the needs of the not-so-fortunate 45 per cent.

Finally, I do not believe that the scheme will increase nursery places, nor that sufficient time has been allocated to test it properly.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I did not attend the session described by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. He made one or two points towards the end of his remarks about rural areas, and I can think of places like Sutherland, Argyll and Inverness where there are enormous open spaces. My noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy and I live in Tayside, an area which was not mentioned by the noble Lord but which is broadly similar to Grampian, which is well known to the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Ewing of Kirkford. In Kirriemuir and Northmuir—my neck of the woods—there is adequate provision for children, but Clause 23 could give assistance to parents where I live. It is helpful to have the facility of the option provided by Clause 23.

I was interested in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. When the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, winds up he may be able to enlighten me about the questions of divisiveness and, above all, timing. He described two children going to school side-by-side, with one leaving at the end of the morning and the other at the end of the afternoon. Many people on these Benches think that I am going back to my youth; that is not necessarily so, but I know the span of children's attention at the age of four. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that it is interesting that, as noble Lords are aware, in Scotland, at the start of the school year in August, at lunchtime—12 o'clock—one cannot get near schools. For the first six or 10 weeks of a child's school career it is considered reasonable for the child to attend only in the morning. If that is the pattern in primary and infant schools, I wonder whether the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about divisiveness and one child leaving in the morning and another staying on in the afternoon are relevant. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten me when he winds up.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Goold

My Lords, as I said at Committee stage, I am surprised at the pessimism of noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite. At present in Scotland only a minority of children enjoy pre-school education. For every child who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may leave and go to the private sector with a topping up fee, I believe that, if the local authority nursery education is good, several will go to the local authority nursery schools. Parents will be given a voucher; they may never previously have had any encouragement to send their children to a pre-school nursery. They will want to use the vouchers. If the schools are good, I believe that the local authorities will gain far more. Yes, new private schools may well be set up, but I believe that more people will want to send their children to established local authority schools if those schools are good.

I too attended the meeting in Glasgow and had the honour of chairing the splendid Select Committee. I heard the opposition that came from local authorities, but we must realise that there is always opposition to anything new or radical. Many of the best ideas that have come from the Government over the past 15 years have been fiercely opposed by the Opposition. Yet they are now accepted by New Labour as policies which it would wish to follow. The voucher system for nursery education is the same. It should receive a fair trial, and I believe that the outcome will be beneficial to all pre-school children in the country.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I did not sit on the Select Committee in Glasgow, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. However, I have read the evidence and noted that one argument was that the sum of £1,100 a year was inadequate to fund a nursery school place for a child. Therefore, either the local authority would be out of pocket or private suppliers would not be able to afford to start up. Alternatively, parents would have to top up the voucher and therefore it would be nursery education for the well off and no education for the poor.

I have a grandson aged four who lives in Edinburgh. He goes to nursery school for three hours a day, five days a week. For that, the fees are approximately £520 per term. According to my arithmetic, that works out at £1,560 a year and, also according to my arithmetic, at that fee £1,100 a year would provide either 2.5 hours a day—which is as long as some children are able to concentrate—for four days a week or 3.5 hours a day for three days a week. As I understand it, the scheme was not intended to provide full-time education. At the outset it was only intended to provide part-time nursery education. Apart from the problem of disabled children who have learning difficulties, it is possible that £1,100 may be perfectly adequate.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I have slipped unobtrusively from my seat on the Front Bench to where many noble Lords consider I should be, a seat on the Back Bench. I am not sure that the leader of my own party does not consider that to be my place. It is important that I should make my position clear at this stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right: Clause 23 is the crucial, central feature of the Bill. Throughout our debates I have argued strongly from the Front Bench against the proposal to introduce a voucher scheme for nursery education.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that the £1,100 is meant to purchase approximately two hours of nursery education. In her words, that is all that a child can stand in any case.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I said two-and-a-half hours a day four days a week, or three-and-a-half hours a day three days a week. Children vary as to their concentration span.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, as I understood her, the noble Lady was arguing that, by and large, that was what a four year-old child could accept. If that is the case, why on earth is there a provision in the Bill to allow parents to send their children to private rather than local authority nurseries? That is a noteworthy point. A provision in the Bill allows people sending their children to private nurseries to top up the £1,100. They can therefore choose to send their child to a private nursery not for two-and-a-half hours a day four or five days a week or three hours a day for four days a week, but for five or six hours a day for five days a week.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will say that that is a matter for parental choice. I suggest a simple solution to the whole question. If we want to give parents real choice, let us leave it to them to decide whether they want the voucher. Let us leave it to parents to apply for the voucher. But of course that is not part of the scheme; parents do not have to apply.

In advertisements throughout the national press for a company to run the scheme, the scheme is quite clearly defined. Parents of every four year-old in this country will have a voucher sent to them whether or not they want it. That is not parental choice. This suggestion was laughed off in the beginning, but I challenge the Government. If we want to give parents a genuine choice let us leave it to them to decide whether they want the voucher. Let them decide whether they turn to the local authority in areas where, as the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, said there is adequate provision. For example, in Fife and Lothian, where there is over 96 per cent. provision, parents could decide whether to go to Fife central headquarters or Lothian council headquarters or their outfield offices to ask for a voucher. The Government will not do that of course. It would be a negation of the very principle they seek to introduce.

As the noble Lord, Lord Goold, said, a number of areas throughout Scotland have inadequate provision. The Islands are a very good example. Anybody who believes that a voucher scheme will cure the problem of inadequate provision in those areas completely fails to understand, first, the culture and, secondly, their rural nature. By and large, because of the widespread nature of communities, children have to travel very long distances between home and school even for primary and secondary education, let alone nursery education. A £1,100 voucher will not persuade a mother or father in the Western Isles, the Outer Hebrides or the Orkneys and Shetland to send a four year-old child between 20 and 50 miles to a nursery class. The suggestion is ludicrous. Yet that is what the Government pretend.

I do not believe the Government themselves think the scheme will be implemented. I do not believe for a minute that sensible people such as the noble Earl the Minister, who has the unfortunate task of trying to pilot this Bill through the House, think that that is a sensible proposition. The problem in the rural areas of Scotland is not linked to the councils. It is not that councils do not want to supply nursery education. It is simply a matter of the distance children have to travel to reach the facilities provided.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a constitutional point; namely, that the Opposition's suggestion that Part II of the Bill should not stand part would "take the guts" out of the Bill; it is a wrecking amendment when the Bill has not been before another place. Of course it has not been before another place—it started its passage here in this Chamber. It is not a defence for a government supporter to say that if a Bill begins its passage in this place we should not make any fundamental changes to it because it has not been to the other place. If the Bill is so fundamental, it should have started its passage in the other place.

I believe with all my heart and say in all sincerity that the voucher scheme is destined to failure even before the four pilot areas are tested. There is no guarantee whatsoever from the Government that if the experiment in those four areas should fail, they would then withdraw the scheme. I do not believe that they would, and for one simple reason. They have ignored all the evidence given to the Select Committee of this House which met in Glasgow (of which I was not a member) and have gone ahead, head down, determined to implement the scheme. There is little hope that if the pilot project is a failure, the Government will withdraw the scheme. They will not.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I say with great respect that there is a fundamental difference between those who sit on these Benches and the Government's supporters. This whole question has absolutely nothing to do with the provision of nursery education. It has everything to do with dogma. No professional educationist the length and breadth of the country—some of whom must be Conservative supporters—supports the measure. It may well be that such people are very reluctant to come out and declare their support for the Conservative Party. I have a great deal of sympathy and full understanding for them in their very difficult position. However, not one has supported the proposal. Had there been any support, the Government would have trumpeted it from the rooftops.

As I have told the noble Earl the Minister, he can make a name for himself. All right, he will be sacked; but we will look after him! He can stand up, accept this amendment and get rid of this absolutely madcap idea. In that way he would write himself into the educational history books of Scotland as having done something for our four year-olds. This proposal is an absolute disaster. I urge my noble friends to test the opinion of the House on this issue. It is crucial to the future of nursery education in Scotland.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I know that at Report stage every speaker rises only once to speak, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about the main constitutional point that he made. Does he believe, whether a Bill begins in this House or in another place—I am glad that the Bill began in this House because we have examined it with great care so far—that an unelected Chamber should remove the guts of the most important part of a Bill?

It seems to me that he is misleading the House on this matter, as when he joined in a number of misleading arguments that we have heard before—for example, that parents have to use their voucher. They do not; they have their piece of paper but do not have to use it. He made a number of misleading comments to which perhaps at this stage I should not respond. But does he believe that this House should remove the guts of a Bill whether or not it has been before the House of Commons?

4 p.m.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I feel that the noble Baroness is getting a little over-excited. I am not guilty of misleading your Lordships or anyone else. I explained before that during my term as a Scottish Office Minister there were six or seven press officers. There are now something like 44 in the Scottish Office. There are four press officers for every Scottish Tory MP. The noble Baroness complained that I am misleading the people of Scotland, when in the Scottish Office there are four press officers for every Tory MP in Scotland. I plead not guilty to what I regard as a very grave charge of misleading your Lordships.

With regard to the constitutional question, I take a rather simple but profound view. If your Lordships' House is asked to examine legislation, we have every right to amend it. Otherwise, why are we asked to examine the legislation? That we have no right to amend it is the best argument that I have yet heard—the noble Baroness has it on the record—for Tony Blair's proposal to reform this Chamber.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, history is catching up with many of us today. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to Grampian and Tayside and I have to tell him that he helped to abolish those authorities.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this part of the Bill. For the first time a Bill seeks to ensure that the provision of a major service is achieved through a voucher scheme. Nothing at all like that has been done in the area not only of education policy but of social policy generally. It is a major change in the approach of the Government to the provision of major services. Therefore, it requires very close and detailed scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made a principled objection to the voucher approach. By introducing vouchers, we move into uncharted waters and there are dangerous rocks ahead. Let me mention just a few. One that concerns me is the whole area of fraud. The Audit Commission has already drawn attention to the need to have in place extremely robust and powerful procedures to guard against fraud. I find it extremely difficult to see how we can have a scheme which minimises to acceptable levels the opportunity for fraud.

If there are unscrupulous providers, what is to prevent some deal being done whereby the person holding the voucher (which cannot be cashed for £1,100) can obtain fewer sessions than the face value of the voucher would secure and have a cash settlement as well from the provider? It is difficult to see the kind of procedures that would prevent such fraud taking place. We need a clear statement from the Government, with the support of the Comptroller and Auditor General, about how that major kind of abuse is likely to be prevented.

The Government also argue that the voucher scheme will increase provision and bring new players into the market. I do not believe that is likely to be the case. The voucher scheme is pitched at the level of £1,100, which, as we have been told on a number of occasions, covers basically the recurrent revenue costs of a half-time provision. It does not cover the capital costs. So it is unlikely that new players will enter the market when the price of the voucher does not enable them to cover their capital expenditure in setting up the new nurseries. There will certainly be some slack. There may well be a marginal increase but not a significant increase.

The perversity of the scheme is that, by introducing the £1,100 voucher, far from increasing the provision, it may have the effect, if provision remains roughly constant, of allowing the price level to rise. So in the private sector, the price level of private provision may increase. I think that is not what the Government want but, clearly, it is one of the dangers that beset a voucher approach.

There is also the danger that in some areas there may be a reduction in provision from the present levels. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, made reference to the difficulties of rural areas. Let me repeat the example that I gave in Committee. In a rural area, a local authority may just be able economically to make provision for one nursery class, say of 25 children. Quite understandably, perhaps because of the area in which the father travels to work, it may be more convenient for two or three of those children to be taken to a private nursery school and the voucher used to gain access. I do not criticise the parents for doing that. But by taking those children out of the local authority nursery school and taking money with them, there is a danger that the local authority nursery school will no longer be economically viable. So there is the bizarre situation whereby the choice exercised by the few denies provision for the many. That is the situation that can stem from this ill conceived and ill begotten idea of nursery provision.

We have seen in Scotland the model for effective nursery provision. The noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Ewing, have already drawn attention to it. Basically, it builds upon the strengths and example of local authority provision, certainly complemented and in partnership with the private sector. It is not done through a madcap voucher scheme.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, offered me a place in the history books should I decide to abandon this part of the Bill, which I have no intention of doing. I should tell him that in an area of Scotland that he knows well, I am already in the local education history books. I shall soon have 25 per cent. of an entire primary school because five of my children will all be attending the same school at the same time. I intend to keep that very good local authority primary school going by maintaining that sort of proportion.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, has the noble Earl advised his wife of that?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I believe in partnership.

I was interested in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy on the constitutional point. I do not disagree with the noble Lord's riposte. However, in defence of my noble friend, I point out that the other place passed the English Bill which deals with nursery voucher provision and therefore backed the principle of nursery voucher provision. For those who, like my noble friend, see a constitutional problem, that may be of relevance.

I point out to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, Lord Addington, Lord Sempill and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that there are people in Scotland who are looking forward to the provision of nursery vouchers. Many parents are seeking the provision. The pilot scheme launched in East Renfrewshire illustrates an interesting reaction. When the scheme was announced, the telephone system could not cope with the calls coming in from interested parents. When my honourable friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, the Scottish Education Minister, recently visited on the helpline, it was swamped with calls from outside the pilot project area asking why they could not be included in the scheme.

Parents want the voucher system. It may be that there are elements of the existing educational structure which do not want to contemplate such change. But the beneficiaries—the parents and the children themselves—have a much more positive approach. Other organisations also support the idea. The Gaelic playgroup movement in particular expressed a keen interest in the voucher system. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, referred to the Western Isles as being a place where it would have little relevance. We know that it will have great relevance, not only for journeys of 40 miles or more but also to generate playgroups serving specific communities such as the Gaelic community.

I draw attention also to the Scottish Consumer Council, which paid tribute to the opportunities of wider involvement which the voucher initiative will offer. There are people in Scotland who want the voucher system to be installed. The four pilot project areas—I address this point especially to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, because he had anxieties about certain rural areas and the practicality of the voucher system—are deliberately located across a range of different types of community and geography. We want to find the rocks in the water, if they exist, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred; we want to iron out the problems and ensure that the benefits the scheme can bring are delivered.

My noble friend Lord Goold put his finger on the point when he said that radical ideas are always treated with suspicion. I hasten to add that they are not always treated with wisdom. The witnesses who gave the so-called "evidence" to the Select Committee in Glasgow were speculating about a scheme that did not exist. To categorise it as "evidence" may be misleading. They were seeking to speculate as to what their response would be to something which did not yet exist.

Fifteen years ago noble Lords on the Benches opposite would have made the same speeches about the sale of council houses to sitting tenants as we have heard today. They resisted those reforms to the last ditch, yet in Scotland the system has produced 315,000 home-owners and increased home ownership from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. Similarly, noble Lords opposite would have spoken against the system of school placing requests which since 1981 has enabled over 240,000 parents—90 per cent. of all the parents who applied—to exercise choice in selecting the school that they want their child to attend. They would have spoken against school boards and even report cards. The dogma which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, accuses us of having is one that they hold in terms of opposing parental choice wherever it occurs.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, is the noble Earl intending to make reference to the outstanding success of opted-out schools in Scotland, of which I believe there are two?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, this clause is a serious part of the Bill and I intend to make reference to all matters that are relevant to the House's deliberation on the issue.

When one thinks of the party opposite opposing choice, it must be a matter for comment that certain senior members avail themselves of that choice. But they are right to do so; it proves that they are good and conscientious parents, even though they are not consistent as politicians. It comes down to choice. Many parents will opt for local authority nursery provision, just as many council tenants choose not to buy houses. All three elements of education provision, whether in the public, voluntary or private sectors, will benefit from the scheme. They will be winners and not losers. Competition will improve provision and excellence. The new provision will come into being in response to market demands.

The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, mentioned the Scottish Parent Teacher Council study that suggested that 77 per cent. of parents wanted local authority provision. That is fine. We want the excellent reputation of local authorities to continue to attract children to their education systems. We expect the voucher scheme not only to increase the number of children who attend local authority schools but also to increase the provision for those children. However, a recent survey by the Scottish Independent Nursery Association suggested that 65 per cent. of parents want independent nurseries. I have no view on that. It is entirely up to parents whether they go to the public, the private or the voluntary sector, which is a vital sector, for the pre-school education of their children. It is parental choice that matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for the second time, made great play of the fact that we are hardly offering parents choice if we are sending them vouchers. First, I doubt the logic of that argument. Secondly, we are not sending parents vouchers; we are sending them application forms for vouchers. Should any parents not want to be involved in the nursery voucher scheme, they simply need not fill in the application form. I believe that answers the noble Lord's concerns absolutely.

Many research studies have shown that early years education brings significant benefits to children in terms of both social development and learning capability. Pre-school education gives children a head start, and the Government's pre-school voucher initiative aims to make that head start available to every child. It need not be socio-divisive. Indeed, we wonder why noble Lords opposite are convinced that it must be socio-divisive.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Sewel, imagined hypothetical situations where, because of the nursery voucher system, a number of parents opted for a different type of provision. If we relate that hypothesis to the facts, we can assume that five children in an area attend a local authority school. I remind the House that 55 per cent. of four year-olds at the moment receive local authority pre-school education. With the advent of vouchers, if two of those five children are taken to another source of provision by the parents because they have that choice, there are probably an additional four children in the area who will opt for provision from that local authority for the first time. For every two children that may leave the school, there is a huge pool of four year-old children in Scotland at present who are not receiving pre-school education but who will be given access to pre-school education for the first time by the voucher system.

I stress that it is not as though the private sector is the only sector which charges parents for the education of their children. I will not recount an article that appeared in the Scottish section of The Times Educational Supplement on Friday. It dealt with the upset felt by parents and others because Glasgow, Inverclyde and West Dumbarton are proposing to charge up to £70 a week for their local authority provision of pre-school education where, for instance, children come in from outside the local authority area. The public sector is also indulging in charging parents, which in some instances will prevent those parents from continuing to have access to that local authority education. Vouchers will enable those parents to continue to enjoy that provision.

I would also remind the House that the voucher initiative can be implemented using existing powers contained within Section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Part II of the Bill does not introduce the ability to provide nursery vouchers for the parents of four year-old children. What it does is to introduce precisely tailored powers with associated provisions that will bring quality, public accountability and efficiency to how provision is made. It will bring protection for parents, for the children and indeed for those where information about their status as being parents of four year-olds is taken from social security records. It is therefore essential that we add to the existing provision, which enables the Secretary of State to grant vouchers to providers of pre-school education, the vital parts of Part II which will ensure quality and other necessary measures.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, continues to be concerned about the dangers of fraud. I explained in great length in Committee that we are adamant that fraud will be fought with all the most sophisticated and modern measures. The voucher system cannot be susceptible either to significant fraud or to significant bureaucracy. I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that a management company will administer the scheme at very low cost. We are confident that the cost of issuing and redeeming the vouchers will not exceed 2 per cent. of the total voucher programme. The scheme will be a remarkably cost-effective provision. As regards fraud, we have to, and will, employ robust procedures to ensure that no taxpayers' money is wasted. We in the Scottish Office and in government have to account for those procedures and will take on board any comments or suggestions made by the public accounts watchdogs which scrutinise the disbursement of public money.

Clause 23 has a key part to play here. It empowers the Secretary of State to pay grants and with the other provisions of Part II of the Bill to provide the quality we are looking for. In addition, it provides that the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the children in respect of whom such grants can be made. It is a very simple and central clause; it is a very simple and central part of the Bill.

I was grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for explaining from, as she said, her first-hand experience as a grandmother the costs that arise and the kind of provision that is offered to parents of young children. I can remind the House and indeed my noble friend Lord Lyell that there is a whole variety of educational provision for four year-olds. Some parents will choose fairly long sessions for their children which are of a fairly low input in terms of educational material. One thinks of playgroups. We are not talking about child care; we are talking about structured activities. There are other parents who will go for the half day or part-time option which has greater emphasis on actual education.

As various noble Lords have pointed out, with the average education span of a child, if education rather than the less formal playgroup is the main purpose, it is quite right that the part-time approach is pursued. However, we are confident that the £1,100, voucher will broadly cover the costs of the average provision of this kind of education for children. Recent Audit Commission studies in England and Wales, which I quoted in Committee, confirm our confidence that £1,100 vouchers will cover substantially the costs of either of those routes. I also dealt in Committee with a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. The providers, be they in the voluntary sector, the private sector or the public sector, will be able to use the vouchers to help off-set the cost of loans and other sources of capital investment.

It is very important that we understand the basic facts underlying Part II. The Government are determined that we provide all parents of four year-olds with the means to supply their own children with pre-school education if that is their wish. We are determined that the vouchers initiative should support diversity of provision across the different sectors of providers. Our initiative will give parents choice because that will lead to more responsive services and a strengthening of the mixed economy of pre-school education. I am disappointed to find noble Lords opposite in both main opposition- parties so opposed to parental choice.

The Government are confident that the voucher system represents the best means of ensuring the expansion we all desire. There are some 27,000 four year-olds in Scotland who are currently not going through local authority nursery schools. We want all those children to be stimulated into schooling. By allowing the Secretary of State to make grants for pre-school education, Clause 23 would allow the creation of a broad and quality oriented range of providers.

No political chamber in the world attaches more importance to or spends more time on discussing matters concerning the family than does this House. The crucial means of supporting the family is to give decision-making powers to parents from the very beginning of children's education. Parental involvement is the best way of enhancing contact between parents, teachers and children. It will help discipline in the home. Children must be our primary consideration—not the status quo as regards local authority education provision. Unless overall nursery provision is stimulated in all three sectors, some children will be left to watch "Power Rangers" on television in their pre-school year while others learn social skills at a nursery school.

This is no attack on local authority nursery schools. They have a tremendous reputation in Scotland. They will be great winners from the additional provision that will be required by those voucher-holding parents. Local authorities will benefit from this initiative, as indeed will all other parts of the educational sector, and as indeed will parents and their children. That is why we are putting so much new money into the initiative.

On this amendment Labour and the Liberal Democrats would appear to want to bar parental choice from this whole issue. They appear to want to bar parents from being involved in schooling. We welcome parental involvement in this. Parents who have made decisions about their children's nursery education are more likely to participate throughout the rest of their children's educational lives. They are more likely, for instance, to be involved in school boards. The whole cycle of co-operation will create a greater sense of community. Only the children of Scotland will suffer if this House rejects the valuable provisions in Clause 23 and in the rest of Part II. I therefore urge noble Lords to allow Clause 23 to remain a part of the Bill.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, one of the difficulties about opposing the noble Earl is that I believe that he believes everything he says and I believe that he is looking for the best of all possible worlds. If the whole process was left to him I might well be persuaded that the ideas were good. What makes me think again is that in Glasgow we spent nearly two days in the Select Committee with experts on education from all walks of life. None of them believed that this was a good scheme. We had our own experiences and we listened to experts on education who came to speak to us. That is the basis on which we have opposed the scheme so vigorously.

Perhaps I may say a few words about the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She tried to suggest that this is a wrecking amendment. If we disagree violently with a Bill, I do not see why we should not seek to wreck it. I suggest to the noble Baroness that she studies the period when there was a Labour government instead of looking into a crystal ball. She should examine the record; she will see our scars as regards the number of Bills wrecked in this place by the party opposite. Anyone who was here at the time will remember that many Bills were destroyed or emasculated. That is why we feel strongly about the matter.

The Minister gave one example which almost perfectly illustrates part of the problem. He spoke of about 65 per cent. of those in East Renfrewshire who are keen to have the voucher system. That is exactly what we are talking about. It is one of the few areas, which includes Newton Mearns, where there is still a Tory representative. I do not believe that there are any councillors there. I wonder whether noble Lords saw the cartoon in one of the weekend magazines showing a rather imperious lady saying to a gentleman, "Oh, a Tory councillor in Scotland—how quaint!" That is exactly the position in East Renfrewshire.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, it is not only in East Renfrewshire where there are pilot projects or where the hotlines have been swamped by parents who want this provision. We are also talking about Argyll and Bute, North Ayrshire and parts of the Highlands and Islands. The parents across these areas want this system and that is why they show such energetic interest in what is going on.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I was intending to mention the islands because I agree they are a very special case. They are desperate for any movement at all. If the Minister gives the matter a few minutes thought, I believe he will realise that East Renfrewshire does not represent a very good cross-section. I know the area very well. It does not represent a cross-section of the west of Scotland because it is only a small part of that area. Despite liking the Minister and conceding that he believes what he is saying, we are so strongly opposed to this measure that we must take the view of the House.

4.32 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Jeger, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Barnett, L.	Lockwood, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Berkeley, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Borrie, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Carter, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Monkswell, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Peston, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Diamond, L.	Rea, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Redesdale, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Richard, L.
Dubs, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.	Seear, B.
Falkender, B.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Sempill, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Serota, B.
Gallacher, L.	Sewel, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Stallard, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Strabolgi, L.
Gregson, L.	Taverne, L.
Grey, E.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Haskel, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hayman, B.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Healey, L.	Tope, L. [Teller.]
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Tordoff, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	White, B.
Howell, L.	Williams of Elvel, L
Howie of Troon, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Addison, V.	Kimball, L
Ailesbury, M.	Kintore, E.
Ailsa, M.	Knollys, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Lauderdale, E
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Leigh, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Lindsay, E
Astor of Hever, L.	Long, V.
Balfour, E.	Lucas, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Beloff, L.	Lyell, L.
Berners, B.	McConnell, L.
Blakenham, V.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Boardman, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Merrivale, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Mersey, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Middleton, L.
Bruntisfield, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Cadman, L.	Milverton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Campbell of Cray, L.	Mountevans, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Carnock, L.	Munster, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Murton of Lindisfame, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Nelson, E.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Norrie, L.
Chorley, L.	Ncrthesk, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	O'Cathain, B.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Coleraine, L.	Orkney, E.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Comwallis, L.	Oxfuird, V
Courtown, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Pender, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Davidson, V.	Platt of Writtle, B.
De Freyne, L.	Pym, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Rathcavan, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Rawlings, B.
Drogheda, E.	Reay, L.
Elibank, L.	Rees, L.
Ellenborough, L	Rennell, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Renton, L.
Elton, L.	Renwick, L.
Foley, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Seccombe, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Shannon, E.
Gainford, L.	Sharples, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Goold, L.	Slim, V.
Goschen, V.	Stockton, E.
Granard, E.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Gray, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Halsbury, E.	Sudeley, L.
Harding of Peiherton, L.	Teviot, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Teynham, L.
Hayter, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Henley, L.	Trumpington, B.
Hertford, M.	Ullswater, V.
HolmPatrick, L.	Vivian, L.
Howe, E.	Westbury, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wharton, B.
Ilchester, E.	Wise, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.44 p.m.

Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 6: After Clause 23, insert the following new clause— EVALUATION OF PILOT SCHEMES (". No grants shall be made under section 23 of this Act until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament an evaluation of any pilot or experimental schemes and of their implications.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the premise of the amendment is that if there is a pilot scheme, regard should he had to what is said. After the scheme has been run—there is dispute as to whether the period is long enough to be effective—Parliament should pay attention to the results of it.

This amendment was tabled slightly late on Thursday, for which I apologise, but it has already been flagged up. In Glasgow the Minister assured the Select Committee that in a pilot scheme everything would be taken into account. When we pushed him a little further he repeated that. At the end I asked whether, if the scheme ultimately failed, the whole voucher system would be withdrawn. The Minister replied that he could not conceive of any situation in which the scheme would fail. He was probably the only person who gave evidence who could not foresee anything that could be deemed a failure of the scheme.

The amendment provides that the results of the scheme should be laid before Parliament. All of the matters referred to in the last debate—the degree of parental choice, the fact that many who knew anything about the Bill were not keen on it and so on—could be taken into account. At that time we will see what has gone wrong and what has gone right. If this scheme seems to be appropriate for the Islands of Scotland or the outlying regions, perhaps it could be retained or something else tried later on. We must remember that the voucher scheme is not in the Bill itself, which is merely concerned with a grant-making power.

On the basis of this amendment or a consideration along these lines, Parliament would be given time to think again with knowledge. I suggest that this can be easily done. If not, I suggest that dogma is taking over on all sides and the idea of providing better education has been ignored. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. Perhaps at a later stage he or my noble friend the Minister may be able to enlighten me as to the evaluation of the pilot scheme. What is the process of the catch-all system of evaluation? What will be the parameters for the evaluation of the success or otherwise of the scheme? If the noble Lord can spell that out for me at the end, I await his comments with interest, as I believe that that will clarify the amendment.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, I should have thought that it would be for the noble Earl to explain the evaluation of the pilot scheme. To take the argument back one stage, what is the purpose of the pilot scheme? If the purpose is not to find out the strengths and weaknesses of any aspect of policy that is being introduced, basically there is no point in having a pilot scheme in the first place. If the Government are to introduce a pilot scheme that is not to be evaluated, it seems to me that there is little purpose in introducing it. If it is being suggested that in introducing the pilot scheme all that the Scottish Office is doing, with its massed army of civil servants, is trying something out to see what form the application should take and to test various administrative aspects of the voucher system, that can be done without the expense of a pilot scheme in these four areas of Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships whether the Scottish Office is to evaluate the scheme. If so, no doubt the noble Earl can answer his noble friend's question and the questions that are in the minds of us all. I am quite happy to state what I believe should be examined.

One of the matters is the quality of nursery education to be provided. I believe that that is essential in the pilot project. It was noticeable that the Minister did not mention it in summing up the last debate when he spoke of the desires of parents. Some parents would be happy with a high educational content; others would be happy with a "play scheme" content, to quote his words. That is not part of nursery education. The Scottish Office has advertised for an inspector for the private nurseries which are to be set up to check that they provide an acceptable standard of nursery education. It does not say anything about "play scheme" content. I believe that the noble Earl should look closely at the advertisement placed in the national press some months ago. The Scottish Office advertised for an inspector to inspect the private nurseries which are to be established. Already one has two aspects of the pilot scheme that ought to be evaluated.

There are other aspects of the pilot scheme that should be evaluated; for example, the take up. The pilot scheme should find out how many parents are presently paying for nursery education for their children and take the £1,100 voucher as a contribution to what they have been paying over the past given number of years, depending upon how many children there are in the family. The pilot scheme might show that it is subsidising those who are already paying and who can afford to pay for their children's private education.

I always remember Michael Forsyth, the Scottish Secretary, saying during an education debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that his parental choice was made through his cheque book. That quote can be checked easily. It was a Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh. Michael Forsyth was not then Scottish Secretary but Minister of State or one of the Under-Secretaries in the Scottish Office. He made it clear that he made his parental choice through his cheque book. That is a privilege people are entitled to have. I do not act in that way but if people wish to, who am I to criticise? Where I do criticise is if those parents cash in on the scheme and claw back some of their cheque book parental choice.

There is no shortage of aspects of the pilot scheme that should be evaluated. I am surprised that the question was put. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, first, whether the Scottish Office will evaluate the scheme; secondly, what tests it will apply to the pilot project in the four areas of Scotland; and, thirdly, whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the scheme will be withdrawn in the event that the pilot projects are shown by the evaluation test to have failed.

This is an important aspect of the discussions of Part II of the Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Carmichael, I have great respect and liking for the Minister. I know that he is keen to give as much information as possible and to be as helpful as he can when these questions are raised. It is in that spirit that I join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in speaking to the amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can clarify a matter. It seems to me that a year will be a very short time in which to evaluate the pilot schemes. If I were planning to set up a nursery school, it would take me at least a year to obtain suitable premises and carry out any necessary conversions, equip them and engage staff before I could even start taking in pupils. It seems to me that if we are to get a real picture of how well the whole thing works, a period of at least two years will be necessary.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I was unable to be present to hear the evidence given in Glasgow. I support the amendment. I have read and listened carefully to the points made. The first and most important issue to make clear is that there are two aspects to parental choice. There is the aspect of whether public finance is available to provide a voucher for parents who at present cannot, because of lack of availability, or do not choose to, use LEA provision, and whether giving a voucher to parents in that group is a valid position to take.

There is then the question regarding the nursery provision which is able, and available to, meet parental choice where the parents want their child or children to go to the local authority nursery. We could have a long debate as to how many parents—it would be a bit like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin—will choose to send their child, full or part-time, to a local authority nursery and avoid the use of vouchers. The Government could then argue that there is complete choice.

However, the financial arrangements of the scheme the Government have put forward appear to carry a marked danger, under the guise of offering increased choice to some parents who do not now receive what they want, of eroding or worsening the choice that is currently available to other parents. Among them may be parents of children who are deemed to be most in need of access to the maximum time available for pre-statutory school age education.

I am thinking not just of children who are physically handicapped but of those who are emotionally and behaviourally disturbed or who come from families with multiple problems. There is often provision made to ensure that special needs children—not just the most severe 2 or 2.5 per cent. but the 18 per cent. about whom Members of your Lordships' House on all sides are deeply concerned and to whom we want to see high quality nursery education made available—are catered for.

There is also the question of whether any particular means of looking at the financial arrangements for implementing the scheme will have expected or unexpected financial repercussions on local authorities' ability to continue the existing level of provision, and whether interfering with the complex nature of local government funding will have a damaging impact.

I listened with interest to the Minister when he alleged that Members on this side of the House condemned the Government's proposals as being ill thought out. I waited for him to refer to the community charge or "poll tax". He omitted to do so. Interfering in the complicated nature of local authority funding, and thereby, perhaps unwittingly—I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—affecting financial arrangements may disrupt a local authority's capacity to continue to provide for children with the greatest need. That may be a factor that can be identified in an evaluation of the pilot scheme.

There is also a need to study the whole issue of monitoring and the avoidance of fraud. There can be no doubt about the potential for fraud. Regardless of one's views of the desirability of the scheme, there will obviously be unanimity in your Lordships' House about the need to evaluate the scheme to ensure that, were it to be implemented universally, there was no avoidable scope for fraud.

There is also the issue of physical and mental safety and the quality of the monitoring of those who make such provision, which is funded from the public sector. I hope that the Government consider that to be an inevitable and valuable aspect of evaluating the pilot scheme. There is a whole range of reasons why that applies in the interests of the most vulnerable children and those who may be at risk of having their current level of provision cut. I refer in particular to those with special needs and to those at greatest risk.

From my experience in local government and from contacts with colleagues in Scotland I know that there are many unique cases. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that it may be sufficient for children to have two to two-and-a-half hours of nursery education perhaps three days a week. That may apply as a generality. As chair of an education committee I have come across cases in which the mother is suffering from a terminal illness. All too frequently those in local government are involved in cases in which there is a query about a non-accidental injury or there is a problem in the home. There must be flexibility and the ability for a child to be taken into nursery education for a longer period, in particular to an environment where the adults and the child know each other. Such times are extremely stressful.

All those aspects must be monitored and evaluated. The Government appear to be confident that the scheme will be a total success. The Minister says that there will be only gainers and no losers in the government scheme. Surely, therefore, it would be reasonable for the Government to accept a full evaluation in order to ensure that that confidence is fully borne out by experience.

5 p.m.

Lord Goold

My Lords, as regards the timing of the pilot scheme, we must remember that there will be continuous assessment, as is the case in relation to all education issues in Scotland. I fear that as a result of political dogma there will be those who will deliberately try to obstruct the pilot schemes. Certainly there will be lack of co-operation.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is not in his place today. He felt considerable frustration at the opposition that was expressed during the committee meeting in Glasgow. He referred to the condemnatory tone of the proposals. During the Select Committee he addressed representatives of CoSLA, the EIS and other teaching organisations. He said: This is an opportunity surely presented to you to improve the situation by a proper assessment and monitoring of the pilot scheme. Can I have some assurance from you that you are looking forward to the pilot scheme, not as an exercise in self-justification for your criticism and condemnation but with a view to trying to arrive at some kind of objective agreement on the operation of the scheme and its success or failure?". The noble Lord received no such assurance from any of the organisations.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is a leading and distinguished figure in the Association of County Councils. She knows what she is talking about and noble Lords will always listen to her on this subject with great respect. However, apart from the problems mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goold, it will not be possible for the pilot scheme to assess all the broad issues which will take time to develop as the voucher scheme expands. Surely the pilots are designed to discover the wrinkles in the detail of the scheme and iron them out. The pilots will be important in that respect and account will be taken rapidly. However, some of the broad issues which the noble Baroness mentioned cannot be taken into account in the pilot schemes.

One of those issues must be children with special educational needs. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has been able to read the evidence and the replies that the Minister gave to the Select Committee and in Committee. Those replies and the printed information that we have received suggest that local authorities will have a large measure of flexibility in the funding of their nursery provision. Only £1,100 multiplied by the number of children currently in local authority education will be topsliced from a local authority's budget. That will be returned to the authority while the parents send their children to its nursery schools. The rest of what the authority spends will still be available, including extra provision for children with special educational needs.

That is how the situation appears at present but whether it works out properly will emerge only as time goes on. I believe that it will, and it is important that it does. I do not believe that it is a proper subject for a limited pilot scheme in a limited area where there are few such children.

Likewise, it will be difficult to ascertain from four pilots the extent to which parents who now pay 100 per cent. of the fees for private nursery school education will avail themselves of the voucher scheme. It seems likely that they will. If they do so that will, on balance, be of enormous benefit to rural areas because nursery schools which at present are only potentially viable, or barely viable, because insufficient children can attend are handicapped. If every child of four, where the parents so wished, was able to attend a nursery school, more schools would be viable in rural areas. That is most important in Scotland, in particular in Angus where I live and in the Highlands and the Borders. I do not know how important it is in the areas where the pilots are being conducted.

The amendment is not entirely about the importance of the pilot schemes, although they are important. Noble Lords opposite who do not want the voucher scheme and who are too fearful of it have tabled the amendment as a way of stopping the scheme in due course. The amendment would not be necessary if the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat Party were certain that they will win the next election because they have said that they will scrap the scheme. They indicated that by the way in which they voted in their attempt to wreck this part of the Bill. They do not know that they will be elected and they might have a change of heart if they were. Therefore, they have tabled the amendment as a failsafe mechanism so that they can, if necessary, stop the Bill by arguing that various aspects of the pilot schemes, which are in fact details, are major issues. The amendment probably has two purposes, one of which is at a rather deeper level than the other. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, given the untried nature of the voucher scheme, it is appropriate and necessary that it should be subject to evaluation and that the pilot authority should be evaluated. I give credit to the Government for setting up that evaluation. Indeed, the Government have put great store by the evaluation process. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated, in Glasgow the Minister, Mr. Robertson, went out of his way to indicate that lessons would be learnt from the evaluation of the scheme. He said: Everything is up for review. The research and evaluation will be independently done". He went on to say: The research that we have commissioned would be independent, the evaluation would be independent, and in light of that we will look at the entire workings of the scheme". It is quite right that that is how matters should proceed.

But let us turn to the timetable for implementation. The pilot scheme will run in the year 1996–97 with the full scheme starting in August 1997. The Minister has been very helpful in providing us with a copy of the specification of the evaluation and there is much in that which is to the credit of the Government.

However, when we look through to the end of that specification, we come to a paragraph entitled "Timetable and Resources". It says: The project", that is, the evaluation project, should start shortly thereafter—April, May—and should run for just over a year", and this is the important part: with final reporting in August 1997". It goes on to say: There will be need to have firm arrangements for interim reports at the end of each term of the system's operation". But the final report on which a considered judgment can be made is dated August 1997. By then, the new school year will have begun.

How is it possible to learn from any of the mistakes; to sort out any of the glitches to which the Minister referred? How is it possible to carry out a proper assessment and review in the Scottish Office on the basis of the findings of the evaluation when that evaluation report will be due only in August, the very same month that the scheme is to be implemented nationwide? I am afraid that it is necessary for the Minister to make it clear how that process is to take place and how any changes and modifications which may be necessary can be implemented within, at best, two weeks if the report is published at the beginning of August and the schools return in the middle of August. Or is it perhaps that the cat is already out of the bag?

5.15 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, enjoyed that manufactured anger. He knows perfectly well that interim reports lead to a final report.

First, perhaps I may deal with the generality of the amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who support the amendment genuinely wish to see a rigorous evaluation and there is very little between us on that. My noble friend Lady Carnegy suggested that other motives may be involved; that is, somehow to delay or to put an obstacle in the way of the application of the scheme. If that is true, then there is quite a lot between us. But I believe that the Government share many of the concerns and objectives of those who spoke to the amendment in that we all want a first-class evaluation scheme.

Before I turn to the amendment specifically, perhaps I may deal with two general issues which were raised by noble Lords. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He referred to quality. I believe that I addressed the quality issue in replying to the previous amendment. But I remind the noble Lord that quality really is at the centre of our efforts behind the Bill and behind the nursery voucher scheme. The delivery of education can come in different forms. We recognise that there can be quality in the playschool situation and also in a more formal nursery school situation. It is for parents to choose whether they wish to have the less formal playgroup or the more formal nursery school setting as a means of education for their children.

HMI will be responsible for quality. There will be no possibility of providers being approved under this scheme unless they have fulfilled the quality criteria, and we shall insist upon that. The evaluation will not concern itself greatly with that aspect. That is an aspect which will be pursued rigidly by the inspectors.

The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, brought all her experience to bear and raised a number of wide-ranging issues. I remind the noble Baroness—and, indeed, the House because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, raised this issue and I did not reply to it specifically on the last amendment—of what happens to those children who require special services or who have special needs. The moneys which authorities already spend on full-time places for younger children with special educational needs will remain untouched by the calculations which surround the voucher system. Therefore, we recognise that certain categories of children remain priority categories in terms of continued local authority provision. We have no intention of disrupting that in any way. That will be something which the evaluators will seek to identify. They will seek to assure themselves that children with special needs are in no way disadvantaged by the scheme.

Secondly, I shall supply the noble Baroness with a copy of the letter about the complex local authority finances and how they mesh with the financing of the nursery voucher scheme which I sent to other noble Lords who spoke in Committee. It may be of interest to her to read the explanation which is given in that letter.

In essence, we believe that where local authority provision remains the same as it was before, then local authorities will he no worse off after the introduction of a voucher scheme. However, it is our considered view and the view of some of the local authority watchers with whom we liaise that most if not all local authorities will benefit from the extra £30 million worth of purchasing power which is being introduced into the pre-school education market. Local authorities, especially in Scotland but across the UK, have a tremendous reputation for providing that education. In many instances, they are the main providers. Therefore, they will be the major recipients and beneficiaries. Nevertheless, I shall send the noble Baroness a copy of the letter which has been distributed to other noble Lords.

From an early stage, the Government have pledged to share the results of the evaluation of the voucher system's pilot year as openly and fully as possible. I should perhaps explain to the House that the evaluation of the pilot year is essentially being conducted at two levels. There will be a national evaluation conducted by an independent contractor appointed by the Scottish Office. The contractor for the evaluation will be appointed shortly and its work will be monitored by a research committee, including representatives from all three sectors of providers; namely, the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Throughout the course of the evaluation, we hope to arrange a number of conferences which will bring together providers, parents and other interested parties. In other words, we want to he totally open about the information which arises from the evaluation during the pilot year.

Those sessions will serve a dual function of informing the evaluation—that is, gaining responses from those who have an interest—and allowing an early dissemination of results. The proposal for conferences represents another demonstration of the Government's commitment to a thorough and open evaluation of all the workings of the voucher system. We are at one across the House as to the need for a thorough evaluation. We shall make available in the Libraries of both Houses any written reports of the evaluation, whether for these conferences or otherwise published, as and when they come forward. I hope that that addresses the central point of the amendment.

The work of the national evaluation will be informed and supplemented by local evaluations conducted in each of the four pilot authority areas. Indeed, one of the prerequisites that the Government set for councils' participation in the pilot year was a commitment on their behalf to a thorough local evaluation. While the pilot authorities will take the lead in their respective evaluations, we have encouraged them to involve other providers and interested parties in a manner similar to that proposed in the national evaluation.

So far as concerns the national evaluation, we made it very clear in the specification, as many noble Lords will have seen—especially the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—that we require the results to be brought forward by the researchers as they arise and not left until the end of the study. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Goold pointed that out to the House in remarkably succinct language which I can hardly rival.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the objective of ironing out the wrinkles as the scheme progresses. That is an extremely important part of the exercise—that is, the continuous assessment of the scheme—as is the fact that the interim reports will bring to light and predict some of the major conclusions both on the generality of the scheme and, indeed, on all the minute details regarding the workings of the scheme. Therefore, although there is but a short time between the end of one school year in the early summer and the mid-August start of the next school year, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that the fact that one has received interim reports throughout that school year will mean that one is moving a long way towards one's final evaluation at the end of that school year.

The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has been in both academia and local government for long enough to know the value of continuous assessment and interim reports. I do not believe that is as doubting and cynical as he suggests. The early dissemination and availability of findings will enable us—and, indeed, everyone else—to reflect any conclusions of the evaluation in the system's national implementation from August of next year.

Finally, more specific questions were asked about the exact agenda of those who will be carrying out the evaluation. I can tell noble Lords that those concerned will be looking at the impact of vouchers on the provider market. They will also be looking at the volume, the type and the distribution of places which are prompted by the voucher scheme. Further, they will be looking at parental views, the views of those who have been providing and also the views of those who will be tempted to provide for the first time because of the increase in demand. We shall gain a very clear idea of the enthusiasm which comes through parental choice.

In essence, we shall be looking at the entire workings of the scheme, except for the quality aspect. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that we believe that the assessment of quality is best done by those who are experts in quality assessment—Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I hope that my response will be reassuring to those who have tabled the amendment. We want to achieve exactly the same objectives as they do. We want the information to be available in the Library of this House and we want the assessment to be continuous. On that basis, I believe that the amendment is not strictly necessary.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I have heard a great deal in this debate. However, what it really comes down to is that the Government are saying that such a requirement is not needed because they intend to work terribly hard to try to get it right, as best they can. I do not doubt that. I suspect that no one wants such a scheme to go wrong, least of all the Government. The idea of laying the scheme before Parliament is a rod for any government's back, no matter what their colour, if something goes wrong. In that sense it is not party political.

If a government of a different colour—or, indeed, a combination of colours—happened to be sitting on the Benches opposite when the scheme was working well and such a requirement came through, they would have to support it. Indeed, how could they possibly risk that level of public humiliation? However, if those Benches were occupied by the present occupants, then in the event of it going wrong they would have to answer.

As regards quality assessment, what fails and what passes, one presumes, having heard the great list of the activities that the Government propose to carry out, that they will have a rough idea of what constitutes failure and what constitutes success. Therefore, that aspect of the matter does not count. The fundamental point is that we are discussing a new scheme: it is new, it is different and it is going down a new path. By indulging in such pilot schemes, the Government have accepted the fact that nothing is certain. For example, with a pilot scheme you are testing the ground and experimenting. However, the important point about experimentation and tests is that they go wrong occasionally. Indeed, sometimes you fail and experiments go wrong. All the amendment proposes is that a report of the scheme should be debated before Parliament. Surely there is nothing wrong with that suggestion. In the circumstances, I feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.

5.25 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Jeger, B.
Addington, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Barnett, L.	Lockwood, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Longford, E.
Berkeley, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Birk, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Borrie, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Monkswell, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Nathan, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Nicol, B.
Diamond, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Peston, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Dubs, L.	Rea, L.
Eatwell, L.	Redesdale, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.	Richard, L.
Falkender, B.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Seear, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Gallacher, L.	Sempill, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Sewel, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Gregson, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Grey, E.	Taverne, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Haskel, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hayman, B.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Healey, L.	Tope, L. [Teller.]
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Tordoff, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	White, B.
Howell, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Chelmsford, V.
Ailsa, M.	Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Chorley, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Clanwilliam, E.
Ashboume, L.	Clark of Kempston, L.
Balfour, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Cork and Orrery, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Courtown, E.
Berners, B.	Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]
Blaker, L.	Cross, V.
Boardman, L.	Dacre of Glanton, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Dean of Harptree, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Brookes, L.	Dixon-Smith, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Elibank, L.
Cadman, L.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Campbell of Cray, L.	Elton, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Carnock, L	Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Goold, L

Goschen, V.	Northesk, E.
Granard, E.	O'Cathain, B.
Gray, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Palmer, L.
Harmsworth, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Henley, L.	Pender, L.
Holderness, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Howe, E.	Pym, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Rankeillour, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Rawlings, B.
Kimball, L.	Reay, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Rees, L.
Kintore, E	Rennell, L
Lane of Horsell, L.	Renton, L.
Lauderdale, E	Renwick, L.
Lawrence, L.	Saint Albans, D.
Lawson of Blaby, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Leigh, L.	Seccombe, B.
Lindsay, E.	Selborne, E.
Long, V.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Lucas, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Lyell, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Lytton, E.	Slim, V.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
McConnell, L.	Stewartby, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Stockton, E.
Mackay of Gashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]	Stodart of Leaston, L.
	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Merrivale, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L
Mersey, V.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E
Middleton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.	Swansea, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Teynham, L.
Mottistone, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Mountevans, L.	Trumpington, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Ullswater, V.
Munster, E	Vivian, L.
Murton of Lindisfame, L.	Wharton, B.
Nelson, E.	Wise, L.
Norrie, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.34 p.m.

Clause 24 [Grants: requirements]:

[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Clause 25 [Delegation of functions]:

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Disclosure of information]:

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Clause 27 [Interpretation of Part II]:

[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Amendment of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12: Page 29, line 11, at end insert— ("(cc) after paragraph 5 there shall be inserted the following paragraph— "Conflict of interest 5A.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where, whether before or during any meeting of the appointment committee, any member of the appointment committee becomes aware that he or any person connected with him has (whether directly or indirectly) a material interest in or relating to any matter to be or being considered by the appointment committee, he shall declare such interest and withdraw from the meeting during such consideration and shall not vote on any question relating to the matter. (2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall—

1. (a) require a member of the appointment committee to declare an interest or withdraw; or
2. (b) prohibit him from voting,

in relation to any matter where his interest exists by reason only of his being the head teacher of the school or a parent of a pupil in attendance at the school. (3) Section 346(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (meaning of "connected person") shall apply for the purpose of determining whether a person is connected with a member of the appointment committee as it applies for the purpose of determining whether a person is connected with a director of a company; and for such purpose references in that section to a director of a company shall be construed as if they were references to such a member. (4) The validity of any proceedings of the appointment committee shall not be affected by any failure to comply with this paragraph."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, during Committee stage an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, to extend the conflict of interest provisions set out in new Section 5A as inserted by Clause 30 to include an appointment committee set up under Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. I commend both noble Lords for their wisdom in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I indicated that we were sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment and I undertook to bring forward a Government amendment to that effect at this stage. I reiterate my gratitude to the noble Lords for noting the importance of this issue.

Under Clause 30, board members and members of committees constituted by the board must declare any material interest they, or a person connected with them, have in relation to any matter being considered; they must withdraw from meetings where such a matter is under consideration; and they must not vote on any question relating to such a matter. These requirements also apply to any person entitled to attend and speak at board meetings by virtue of Section 5 of the 1988 Act. The only exception from the requirement to declare a material interest is an interest which arises solely from membership of the board as a parent or a staff member.

Where an education authority intends to appoint a head-teacher, a deputy head-teacher or an assistant head-teacher to a school, Schedule 2 requires the authority to set up an appointment committee comprising nominees of the education authority and the school board, where there is one. For posts below head-teacher, the appointment committee also includes the head-teacher.

An appointment committee is not constituted by the school board and as such is not caught by the provisions of new Section 5A(1), with the result that the conflict of interest provisions do not at present extend to appointment committees. This amendment would extend those provisions. It relates to Schedule 2 to the 1988 Act because that schedule contains the legislative provisions relating to appointment committees. The only exception from the requirement to declare a material interest is where such interest exists by reason only of being a head-teacher of the school or a parent of a pupil in attendance at the school. It is only necessary here to mention the head-teacher as other staff of the school cannot serve on an appointment committee.

At Committee stage an amendment to extend the new conflict of interest provisions to appointment committees was described as both important and sensible, both by myself and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and hope that, with the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has shown in this matter, it will be welcomed by all sides of the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I have a question about this amendment. The amendment is extremely welcome and is necessary. I have not been able to give my noble friend notice of the question and I hope it is not too difficult to answer. New Section 5A(4) states: The validity of any proceedings of the appointment committee shall not be affected by any failure to comply with this paragraph". What does that mean? Does it mean that if someone fails to declare an interest and fails to withdraw he carries on regardless? I do not quite understand the provision.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I was aware that the noble Baroness had been involved in discussion in Committee. She made some very good points.

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking up the point that I and, I believe, my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford raised. I do not recollect giving the Minister a chance to clarify further the point raised by the noble Baroness. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. What would be the reprimand for someone who did not declare an interest? Is that included in the Minister's amendment?

I am perfectly happy with the response to the points I raised in Committee. I have given my interpretation of what I believe the noble Baroness sought. I may be wrong in that, but she may be able to clear the matter up and give the Minister a chance to reply more fully.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, that was my concern. If the validity of the proceedings is not affected if someone does not declare an interest, that is slightly strange. It means that someone votes not having declared an interest. I am not happy about that. Is that what the provision means?

There is another point. If the people who declare an interest suddenly withdraw, reducing the committee numbers to fewer than a quorum, the appointments committee cannot proceed. My noble friend will probably tell me that this insertion follows other clauses in other legislation. If so, there must be a good explanation of these points.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been extended to the amendment by both my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I shall give my noble friend a short answer now, and promise to follow it up with a longer answer in writing between now and Third Reading but with sufficient speed so that should any adjustment need to be made there will be time to make it.

The intention of subsection (4) is that the appointment is valid even if it is discovered that an interest which should have been declared was not declared.

With that answer, and the promise that I shall write to my noble friend on the matter and follow it up between now and Third Reading should a revision need to be made, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that my noble friend considers the issue. It is possible to rig a committee. I hate to say that, but having spent some time in local government and having been instrumental in setting up arrangements for appointments committees which avoid such a thing, I do not think that one should be too innocent about the matter.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I said that I would do exactly that. I shall look at the issue.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13: Page 30, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert— ("5. In section 32(10)(a)(ii) of the Finance Act 1991 (definition of qualifying course of vocational training) for the words "Scottish Vocational Education Council" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Qualifications Authority.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply replaces a reference to SCOTVEC in finance legislation with a reference to the SQA. It is consequential on changes made to Section 32(10) of the Finance Act 1991 by Section 144 of the Finance Act 1996 which received Royal Assent on Monday, 26th April. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.