| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.46 am
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): I welcome the debate on a most important area of education. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends that not a single Government Back Bencher is present. If the statistics are correct, the education professionals who have joined the Labour Benches far outnumber those on the Conservative Benches. Moreover, the Prime Minister, when asked about his policies during the election, summed them up by saying, "Education, education, education." Obviously, that did not include pre-school education.
I am committed to the concept of nursery education. Not only have I had three children who have gone through a nursery school, but so committed am I that, when my
last child was there, I agreed to be a parent governor. For the past 16 years, I have been the chairman of governors of a state nursery school not half a mile from the House.
It is a school which, on successive inspections, inspectors have described as a centre of excellence. It is one which I am glad to say has benefited from a committed local authority, the Conservative-controlled City of Westminster, which was committed even before the previous Government's nursery education proposals to providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds within the city of Westminster. Perhaps I should not say too much, but we receive funding from the city of Westminster which averages slightly more than £5,000 per full-time pupil equivalent.
However, I do not believe that there is a division between Conservative Members and those few on the Government Benches in the desired goals of the debate. When she was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the early 1970s, Baroness Thatcher was committed to nursery education for all. But the last Government did something about it. The framework was established by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a speech in October 1974. He said:
I believe that the new Government share those goals. We can deduce from the Government's election manifesto that they are certainly committed to nursery education, but during the election they were also committed to the abolition of the voucher system. They have introduced no legislation to that effect, nor has the Secretary of State made a statement to the House. But the Government have not been idle. They issued a circular to chief education officers on 22 May, to which reference has already been made, and the Secretary of State kindly informed the press in a press notice, also on 22 May, of the Government's plans. I find it slightly disturbing that, in the eight weeks that I have been a Member of Parliament, the Government should introduce such important changes by circular and press release rather than in the House.
Let us examine the Government's proposal. The basic principle laid down by the Secretary of State in his press release calls for "a fresh start"--that is an interesting phrase--"in early years education." The Secretary of State continued:
What concerns me more, however, is that the circular sent to local education authorities contained three different proposals. It required all local education authorities to tell the Secretary of State by noon last Monday whether they intended to introduce an interim early-years development plan. If that were the case, they had to produce the plan by 1 July--Tuesday of next week. The plan was to cover the period from September this year to April next year. The second proposal related to authorities with no plan in place for that period. Finally, on an as yet undefined basis, local education authorities, in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors, were to be responsible for the provision of nursery education in their areas from April 1998.
Will the Minister tell us how many local education authorities have said that they intend to submit an interim early-years plan for the period from September until next April? In areas where there will be no plan, has any estimate been made of either the saving or cost of cancelling the nursery voucher scheme, sending numerous letters and circulars to parents, sending application forms to all parents in non-scheme areas, issuing certificates to those parents--certificates which, as one of my hon. Friends has already said, bear a striking resemblance to vouchers--readjusting local education authorities' standard spending assessments and then repeating the whole process in respect of spring 1998?
The system proposed in the circular is confusing and bureaucratic. It states that in the week commencing 9 June, letters are to be sent to all parents, but there will be three variations on the letter:
By April 1999, the Government want all four-year-olds to have some form of pre-school education, as stated in their circular. As has already been pointed out, no extra funding is available. The date of April 1999 implies something of a slippage from what one deduced was the Government's original policy.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for enabling this debate to take place. This is an enormously important subject to all hon. Members. Having said that, I greatly regret the fact that Conservative Members have outnumbered Labour Members by at least 2:1 and, on one occasion, by 4:1. It is difficult to reconcile that with the statements made by Labour candidates during the election when they parroted their leader's claim that Labour's priority was "education, education, education." Looking at the sea of empty green leather in front of us, one would be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the landslide on 1 May was in our favour rather than Labour's. Sadly, that was not the case, but if Labour Members continue to ignore the needs of parents by spurning such debates, perhaps the position will be reversed before too long.
We have heard a great deal this morning about the importance of pre-school education. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for having dug out so assiduously the American research, which shows that pre-school education can play a vital role in the development of society as a whole. Those who have benefited from it appear to have a reduced inclination towards crime, as well as greater employment prospects and even increased chances of a happy, stable family life.
All-party agreement on the importance of wider pre-school education provision than ever before is vital. I believe that there is such agreement. The question is how that can be achieved. Lady Thatcher, as Secretary of State for Education in 1973, committed the Heath Government to the provision of pre-school education. Given that there was only a year between her declaration and the fall of that Government in 1974, it is not surprising that no progress was made. Sadly, no progress was made during the more than five years of the last Labour Government. It is also a matter of some regret that, for the first 14 or 15 years of the last Conservative Government, no substantial progress was made.
However, in 1994, 15 years after the 1979 election, the then Prime Minister made a clear and categorical commitment--the first that had been made--to universal provision of nursery and pre-school education from the budget of the Department for Education and Employment. That commitment was delivered on time earlier this year. It is a matter of considerable regret that the nursery voucher scheme, which, despite its inevitable teething problems, is beginning to work well, seems to be falling victim to the Government's ideological obsession with stamping out parental choice.
There is a pattern in the Government's approach to education. Any policy that places power in the hands of parents and puts choice in the hands not of bureaucrats but of those who bring up children is to be eliminated.
The assisted places scheme is to be exterminated. Grant-maintained schools are to be stamped out. City technology colleges are to dynamited. Grammar schools, no doubt, will be taken out and shot at dawn.
That is the future under the new Labour Government. Anyone who does not accept their local comprehensive school, provided by the local education authority, will have no other choice, unless they are on a salary similar to the Solicitor-General's, which we were debating last night. He can pay for private education for all his children on a salary provided by the taxpayer. Sadly, we are not all in that happy position.
We understand that the Labour party believes that power should be removed from parents, but why is the Minister seeking to put so much power and trust in the hands of local education authorities? Most observers of education in this country recognise that local education authorities have consistently failed those who depend on state education. Time and again we hear stories of failing schools, failing local education authorities, bureaucracy run rampant and money being grabbed and held at the town hall rather than being delivered to the chalk face, where it is needed.
Why does the Minister believe that the future of the critical expanding area of pre-school education should rest in the hands of local education authorities? What assurances will she demand to ensure that resources are not held by town hall bureaucrats and will be passed down to where they need to be spent--with the pupils and teachers?
"Because any additional publicly-funded provision must be of high quality, it must promote diversity and parental choice. And it must be carefully targeted in a way that expands, and does not crowd out, the private and voluntary provision we have at present".
The nursery voucher scheme broke new ground in education. It provided a unique system of parental choice and control and equal treatment and equal access to funds for the state, voluntary and private sectors. For the first time, it introduced Ofsted inspections to a sector that had previously been only partially inspected. That quality control laid down some desirable learning objectives--that all children should have personal and social skills taught to them, that they should all benefit from language and literary skills, that they should all acquire a basic mathematical knowledge and all acquire a knowledge and understanding of the world, including science and music.
"We are committed to providing high quality nursery places for all four-year-olds where parents want one."
Of course, that is no different from the proposals and policies of the previous Government.
"(i) to parents of children currently using vouchers in local education authority or grant-maintained provision . . .
In the week commencing 23 June, pre-printed application forms are dispatched
(ii) to parents of children currently using vouchers in private/voluntary provision . . .
(iii) to parents newly eligible for the Autumn term".
"to appropriate parents in those LEAs not planning to submit an interim early-years development plan."
In the week commencing 28 July:
"Eligibility certificates start to be issued to parents who have applied for them."
During the week commencing 6 October, letters go to
"parents of children newly eligible for Spring term".
In the week commencing 27 October, letters go to
"parents using certificates in the Autumn term who will also be eligible for the Spring term."
Finally, in the week commencing 1 December, eligibility certificates for the spring term start to be issued and then letters will be sent to
"parents who applied for an eligibility certificate but whose child appeared on the same Autumn term class lists."
That is the most confusing set of arrangements. One or two parents might have been confused by the introduction of the voucher scheme, but one or two thousand, if not tens of thousands, will be even more confused now.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |