Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: clause 106 stand part and new clause 3—Pre-school nurseries, etc.—

'''Pre-school nurseries and other groups shall be free to modify any curriculum provision in the foundation stage unless subject to special measures.'''

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

New clause 3 is designed to address a problem that has been put to me by several providers of pre-school nurseries and playgroups. I have spent some time talking to the proprietors, teachers and child carers in those groups over the past few weeks and have come away with the inescapable conclusion that the Government, for all the right reasons but in

many cases with the wrong consequences, are putting too onerous a curriculum on children and their carers. The children are very young and in many cases the carers are developed amateurs. Mothers, part-timers and even the proprietors of the groups often do the job in between looking after their own children.

As a result of the restrictions that we are placing on those carers, they are spending long hours managing curriculums, writing detailed lesson plans and dealing with thick curriculum manuals. They are finding it very difficult to do the job. We must remember that we are talking about playgroups in church halls.

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if other child care settings—pre-school playgroups or whatever—decide that they want to provide an additional early education service, for which they will be paid, they must ensure that the service can be audited against education services provided by other settings? That deals with the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest raised about clarifying the type of nursery education to parents, and how it is provided in different settings.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments: she makes an important point. Government should not be expected to contribute large amounts of money to the early years sector without a say in how it is spent in the management of pre-schools. That would be an absurd extreme. I am concerned that the Government have moved to the other extreme: placing curriculum and regulatory requirements that are too onerous on those groups. We are considering an environment such as a church hall where groups of kids play with plasticine or train sets, and do painting. I have seen manuals that suggest that if children go outside and play in the leaves it will give them a sense of momentum and direction. Those thick manuals that contain detailed analysis of individual child behaviour put into fine detail what belongs to common sense.

It is impossible for staff to devote time in their paid working hours to absorbing and managing information. I have seen detailed curriculum plans and day-by-day lesson plans for individual pupils, which push voluntary organisations in informal environments too far towards formality. The proprietors of the groups tell me that that is making it more difficult to attract staff, and more difficult to do the job, which is ultimately putting their groups in jeopardy. That will not be universally true, but we cannot afford to lose pre-school groups. We are making their lives too difficult.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment and the Education Sub-Committee during the last session. The Committee produced an early years report. Among a host of issues, with which I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will be familiar, was the question of

whether those responsible for supervising and managing such groups should be qualified. Could someone unqualified be trusted?

Difficulties have arisen in my constituency because a number of gifted amateurs are part of the provision. Although I recognise that qualifications may be desirable, the demands of the timetable—the ability and the inclination to carry it out—are such that one playschool has closed in my constituency, and two others are under threat. It is an increasing concern, and that is why I support my hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. The framework and inspection should establish whether the children are well looked after and happy. Small children are spending time away from their parents in a strange environment. Are they happy in that environment? Are they receiving guidance, and a range of activities that help them to develop their skills? Those are the questions that I would want an Ofsted inspector examining a pre-school group to ask. Ofsted inspectors should not have to go through detailed study plans for three-year-olds line by line.

The new clause would not remove the Government's right to inspect, or its right to say how things should be done, whether a particular playgroup is functioning appropriately and whether the children are getting the attention they need, deserve and must have. In keeping with the principles that the Minister has set out for other parts of our education system, particularly for secondary schools and the opt-out rights that the Bill provides for them, if Ofsted is satisfied that a pre-school group is performing effectively we should be providing guidelines, not imposing requirements.

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

That is different to what is being proposed in the new clause. There is an argument about what Ofsted inspection criteria should apply. I have some sympathy with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the buildings in which different groups operate. We have made Ofsted inspections of primary and secondary schools more light touch, although that is more of an issue for Ofsted inspections of early-years education and the criteria used. That is better than having a clause in the Bill that allows an opt-out.

Although I have some sympathy with the main point about what inspection regime should apply to nursery education, I do not think we should have a clause in the Bill whereby we could end up with a fairly erratic procedure that does not deal with the main issue.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

The reason for highlighting Ofsted is that it is the tool that the Government use to monitor whether a nursery is performing well and whether its standards are acceptable. They are inextricably linked, although I would want to have the same debate about the exact nature of the inspections that are provided.

If it is accepted by the relevant authorities—which in this case would be Ofsted because that is who would carry out inspections on the ground—that a pre-school group or nursery is well run, and that the children are being looked after and developed effectively, it should

be able to say, ''We don't need to adapt what we are doing or to spend huge amounts of time going through detailed lesson plans, because the inspectors have come in and seen what we are doing, and have said that the school is great and is working well.''

That is what I am seeking to achieve through the new clause. I believe that the Government are imposing unnecessary paperwork even when a pre-school group is well run. This is a classic case of lesson plans being drawn up for inspection even though the inspector may never look at them, except to have a quick glance through them. They are often an unnecessary additional work load for people who are already hard pressed. That is particularly so in areas where it is not easy to find staff, and where groups often depend on mothers helping out as volunteers. It is simply not necessary to regulate those groups unless there is evidence that they are under-performing.

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to allowing less constraints as opposed to the rigidity of the foundation stage curriculum. Manuals several inches thick are required even if Ofsted says that a pre-school group is doing fine, and is looking after and developing its children well. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has just used the key phrase ''the rigidity of the pre-school age curriculum''. That is the point that we are all concerned about. It is because of the increasing rigidity of that curriculum that new clause 3 is necessary.

I have become increasingly concerned that the dividing line between compulsory and non-compulsory schooling is becoming very unclear. It used to be clear that schooling began at five, and we quite rightly talked about rising fives, but now we are entrenching in the Bill the need for pre-school education. In the remarks I made and the questions I asked about 10 minutes ago I was trying to pin the Minister down on this point, which for clarity I shall repeat. I am certainly in favour of including pre-school measures in the Bill, and am pleased at the Government's commitment to pre-school provision, which the Minister reiterated a few moments ago. However, the problem is that if we are too rigid, we will end up with a system that tries to fit the child—even a very small child—into the system, rather than the system fitting around the child.

I have been looking into this matter, and one of the groups from which I have taken advice is the Pre-school Learning Alliance. It says that:

''Moves such as extending the National Curriculum to include the foundation stage taught to children aged between 2 years and 5 years could undermine further the already growing perception that compulsory schooling begins before 5.''

That may be a reasonable thing to do, but the alliance goes on to explain the difficulties. I am sure that the Minister will understand my worry, and why I support my hon. Friend's new clause, which would bring more flexibility into the system. The Pre-school Learning Alliance said:

''Currently, the foundation stage is defined as starting at 3 and finishing at the end of the reception year. The Bill proposes defining the start and end of the foundation year entirely by reference to the school year rather than the age of the child. For some children, the start of the foundation stage will be when they are 2. Many parents will view this with concern.''

I echo that feeling. Many parents would view with concern the idea that the foundation stage could start when their child was two years old. For children born in August and entering reception classes when they are just four years old, the foundation stage will end the following July when they are not yet five. We should admit that that is a problem. Children are born at different times of the year. There are 365 days in a year, but only three or four days when a child can start a term. That has always been a problem. We are setting down rules for very small children. I welcome a semi-compulsory education provision for pre-school children. However, if we make the system too rigid, it will not benefit the children who should be taking advantage of it. That is why my hon. Friend's new clause is necessary.

If pre-school nurseries and other groups have the freedom to modify curriculum provisions, the problem will be solved. The provider will be able to ascertain that a certain group of children who officially fall into such-and-such a category are, for example, three or four months younger. To use the phrase that we used earlier, their maturities would not fit with what is laid down in part of the curriculum. Therefore, we need to have the freedom to modify the curriculum for them.

I hope that the Minister recognises that I am trying to be helpful. I support the new clause, because it would introduce flexibility and enable providers, most of whom are responsible and know what they are doing, to modify the provision to suit the children in their care.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

We are committed to early-years education, but not to any old early-years education. It has to be of the highest quality. We do not want to invest in our children's earliest years only to find that that significant extra investment and commitment were not achieving the objective of allowing children, of whatever age and at whatever stage, to achieve their potential. That is what all forms of education should be about.

It would be wrong to say to some providers that they will have access to the same resources and be subject to the same inspection regime but, because they are a small voluntary organisation or a small private-sector provider, they are not required to fulfil the same foundation stage curriculum requirements.

That is insulting to the voluntary sector. I worked in the voluntary sector throughout my working life—when I had a proper job, as some might say. As a result, I understand the voluntary sector reasonably well and believe passionately in its unique contribution to public life. I sometimes get fed up when ''voluntary'' is equated with ''amateur.''

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I hope that the Minister will forgive me: I am not sure whether the word ''codswallop'' is parliamentary language. We are not discriminating between voluntary, non-voluntary and state

provision, but are saying that a school that is doing well according to Ofsted will not be subject to the same curriculum requirements as a school that is not doing well. I should be grateful if the Minister would address our comments.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

That is not what the new clause says. In his contribution, the hon. Gentleman referred to burdens on the voluntary sector. I agree that there must be an appropriate balance between demanding a quality framework and certain standards, and not over-regulating and over-burdening a public service. I am sure that there is consensus in the Committee about that, and an acceptance that Governments, of whatever persuasion, do not always get the balance right at the first shot.

However, the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to community-based groups, grass roots organisations and voluntary organisations that will have access to the same levels of resource. It is right that such groups are funded, because they provide an innovative, responsive service to their clients. It is right that certain input and output standards should be achieved in return for state funding, which, historically, was not available to many groups. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for the Government to put parameters around a significant expansion of support and resources.

We are making extra investment not simply to expand volume but to increase massively the quality of early-years education provision. Even under the Conservative Government there was limited provision. It was not always of the highest quality—possibly because of the very limited state support—but the people who provided that early-years education did their best, often in very difficult circumstances, with limited access to resources. Some were entirely dependent on voluntary contributions.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

Once again, I do not disagree with the principle. The Minister is absolutely right, but he seems to have misunderstood the intention of new clause 3. It is not that there should not be guidelines, which must be drawn up if we are spending taxpayers' money, or a curriculum, but that there should be flexibility so that small children, who are not all the same, can be treated as individual people and not just as statistics according to when in the year or half year they were born. If the Minister accepts that each individual child should be treated as such, he must accept that new clause 3 is necessary to provide a degree of flexibility.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

I thank the hon. Lady for making me aware of that. I am not confused, but was just coming to that point. We need to distinguish between over-regulation, by which we place excessive burdens on public services, including education, and demanding and expecting certain standards in return for state support and, in effect, state accreditation. By regulating, we are telling parents that they can have confidence in the provider, from whom their child will have a high quality experience.

Mr. Turner: I am sorry that the Minister introduced that point, as that confuses the issue substantially. Registration is entirely different from regulation and accreditation. Accreditation relates to inspection, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred, and is what guarantees quality. The regulation merely guarantees that the schools can tick certain boxes, but does not guarantee quality.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

In most circumstances in which well-motivated and professional teachers and leaders provide those services, the fact that they have access to guidance helps them to deliver a quality service. Therefore, the foundation stage in the curriculum is another part of the commitment to parents that in most cases there will be access to provision that is of a higher quality than when there was no foundation stage in the national curriculum and there were not the resources that are now being invested in early-years education. Inspection will identify where that higher quality provision is missing.

The guidance on delivery of the foundation stage allows teachers and leaders of the providers more flexibility than in any other part of the national curriculum. Most providers welcome that, and that is what new clause 3 seeks to achieve. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell says that he wants a more flexible approach to the capacity to deliver the foundation stage, but he is not advocating the removal of the requirement of that stage.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

Yes.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

However, the guidance gives leaders of those groups a significant amount of discretion and flexibility to achieve the objectives and outcomes.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to two-year-olds. Clause 72(2) makes it clear that the foundation stage could not begin before the child's third birthday. The hon. Lady quoted from a letter about compulsory schooling, its definition and when it begins. The Government's pledge on three and four-year-olds relates to parents who want their children to benefit from early-years education. I do not think that there is any parent in this country who believes that they have to, by law, send their child into an educational situation at the age of two, three or four. It is a slightly unfair accusation to say that by putting the foundation stage into the curriculum as part of this legislation that we have somehow blurred the edges in terms of parents' perception of when compulsory schooling begins.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

A moment ago I was intervening merely to say that it is a welcome difference from our normal proceedings for the Minister to give me a straight answer to the question. Although he has moved on to a second question, I thank him for his straight answer to my first question. In going on to the second point, I would like to clarify and point out the concerns of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which stated:

''the intention to extend the definition of primary education downwards to include the foundation stage and children as young as two undermines the distinction between pre and post compulsory education and may further diminish the status of parents as their children's first educators.''

I see the Minister nodding in disagreement. That is precisely what I want him to do. I am raising this point because I want to have the Minister's assurance properly minuted as part of our deliberations in this Committee. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government have a clear intention as to when schooling is compulsory and when schooling is not compulsory, because parents ought to know this. What is actually happening in practice is that parents are being forced to send their children to primary school reception classes much earlier than they want to, so that they can secure a place in a primary school of their choice. Therefore, that distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory education is being blurred. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government know what they are doing there.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

I am not sure that nodding in disagreement is something that one can do. I can make it absolutely clear to be minuted, to be put on the record, and to be reported in any publication, that new Labour has no intention of introducing compulsory education for two-year-olds.

We have covered this in the contributions made by the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Epping Forest, who made a reasonable overall point about the balance between regulation and the requirement to deliver a standard. It is a reasonable point to make, but new clause 3 is not justified by the current situation. There is more flexibility than at any other stage in the national curriculum in terms of the foundation stage. It is not justified at all in terms of what is happening, nor is it desirable in terms of the kind of quality early-years education that the Government seek to deliver. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell to consider withdrawing new clause 3.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. New clause 3 has not been moved, it cannot be moved yet. The only proposal before us at the moment is that clause 85 stand part of the Bill. The other items are grouped for discussion, but have not yet been moved.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

In that case I shall not attempt to move new clause 3, but I shall seek from the Minister the reassurance for which I was going to ask him in return for withdrawing new clause 3. He rightly made the point that all this discussion is about the balance between over and under-regulation of an important part of our education system. I seek his assurance that over the next few weeks and months he will take the time in his busy schedule to sit down with some providers of those services and listen to the concerns that they have about over-regulation in the curriculum, and that he will act upon those concerns.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is part of my job as a constituency Member and as a Minister. Baroness Ashton has responsibility for this

policy area and deals with these matters in the other place. I shall certainly relay those comments to her for when the Bill is considered there.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 and 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.