Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I understand the concern expressed, although I gave reassurance at the Committee stage. Given the recent article in the press, et cetera, I understand the concern. This amendment was tabled in Committee. I again reassure the House that this clause is not a threat to maintained nursery schools. We share the view about their excellence. The presumption against closure remains the same and is clearly set out in statutory guidance. We are aware of the concerns that maintained nursery schools and others have about these reforms. I stress that we want to create a system where all providers are funded on a more equitable basis that reflects the costs of different types of providers in delivering high quality early education and care. We are supporting local authorities to achieve this aim. I am pleased to announce that on 29 October the Minister for Children wrote to every director of children’s services with a maintained nursery school to reaffirm our expectations on the single funding formula. She made it clear that an equitable funding system should not mean that the future of high-quality provision, such as that found in many maintained nursery schools and private providers, is put at risk. Amendment 206 seeks to disapply the code of practice on the provision of free nursery education for three- and four-year-olds in a local authority area until that local authority has produced a single funding formula. While we understand the intention that if local authorities fail to implement a single funding formula then PVI providers should be free to charge top-up fees, we disagree with it. We are asking local authorities to implement their funding formula from April 2010. To disapply the code until then would mean that some 143 local authorities would not be covered by the code between January and April 2010. This would remove vital safeguards for children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds whose parents rely on their free entitlement. Allowing early years providers to charge top-up fees would be in contradiction to the Childcare Act, which says that free early years provision must be exactly that—free. We do not want to restrict access to this vital early education and care to children in any way, especially those from poor and disadvantaged families. We accept that there are concerns locally about the implementation of the single funding formula. Local authorities around the country are working with their providers to solve them. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made a couple of points on the survey of maintained nurseries and the delay in implementation. The implementation is proceeding to plan, and subject to the Bill will take place in April 2010. The early education survey was undertaken in June last year while local authorities were still working on their formula for public consultation, which took place in September/October 2009; it was probably a little early. On the point about the rates being too low, rates should be calculated using the cost analysis undertaken by local authorities. Local authorities are still out to consultation on their rates. We are collecting data on the rates being proposed by local authorities so that we can challenge them where necessary. I hope that I have covered all the points raised. We want to see what the noble Baroness describes as centres of excellence. These are not defined but I understand what she means—high-quality provision. We are all at one on that. I hope that we have demonstrated our commitment to it and to the progress of the process. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.