Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

We touched on issues relating to the clause when we discussed amendment No. 17. However, it would be helpful if the Minister set out the position regarding charging by maintained schools for child care of children below the age of four. To what extent do primary schools have such facilities? Is the provision of chargeable child care a growing trend? What will the mechanics be for making such charges?

Is there a concern that popular primary schools will be able to insist that parents send their young children to the pre-school setting on the grounds that if they do not, their children will not be admitted to reception class when they turn four? That could enable the school to charge hefty fees as a way of raising extra   funds. How do we prevent that from happening and are there such stipulations in the revised admissions code to prevent that?

I know that the Government have withdrawn the admissions code for various, internal, Labour party reasons—[Interruption.] That sneaks out occasionally. It would help if the Minister put the Committee’s mind at rest that use of a pre-school child care setting in a maintained school will not result in such consequences.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

Section 451 of the Education Act 1996 prohibits schools from charging for educational provision made during school hours. Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that we do not create problems for schools as a consequence of establishing the early years foundation stage and removing the legislative distinction between early education and care for those young age groups. That is why the clause is necessary.

On the extent to which charging currently exists within schools outside the prohibition, the picture is variable. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens. It varies enormously from little or no charging to charging where it is possible. I hope that that gives him the sense that it is a very varied picture. Through the regulation-making powers, we intend to have clear guidance about what is possible and to give some advice to schools where there is currently no distinction between education and child care at those young ages. We need to be clear for what they are and are not allowed to charge. We hope that some of the variability will end when they get the guidance.

It would not be a fair admissions criterion to suggest that only those who pay extortionate charges for out-of-school-hours provision would be considered for admission. I suspect that a school that tried to formulate an admissions policy in those terms might quickly fall foul of complaints to the schools adjudicator, who would make close reference to the code of practice. He would be likely to say that such a policy was unfair and not allowed.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that any fears should be allayed by the schools admissions code of practice and the existence of an adjudicator, through whom, by making complaints, one can get a swift answer to whether a specific policy is fair in any given situation.

With those assurances, I repeat that the clause is needed to prevent problems arising for schools as a result of the fact that we are removing the distinction between education and child care for early age groups.