| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Blackmail?
Mr. Collins: Yes indeed, that is the right word. They tell parents that, unless they sign up for reception classes at their local school, they have no prospect of their children being able to go to that local primary school of their choice at the age of five. In rural areas such as mine in Cumbria, that is a real threat over the heads of parents, because there may be only one primary school within some miles of their home. If they are told that, unless they sign up to the local reception class for their pre-school child they will not be guaranteed a place at that primary school when their child reaches school age, any element of choice is removed from them. I hope that the Minister will address that.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should also encourage
planning departments to be more sympathetic to applications for the conversion of redundant farm buildings in rural areas to provide pre-school nursery provision? There must be equal provision throughout the country, and rural areas must not be neglected.
Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Like me, he represents a rural constituency. He is right to identify a problem in the planning system, which allows insufficient flexibility for the use of redundant farm buildings. I join him in commending to the Minister the idea that the Department should encourage local planning authorities up and down the land, particularly in rural areas, to look imaginatively at ways of providing additional facilities and buildings for the provision of pre-school education in as wide an area as possible to maximise parental choice, especially in rural areas, where many parents feel that they have no choice and sometimes look enviously at those in urban areas who, because of where they have chosen to live, have the advantage of more choice.
Technology has not been mentioned so far. Within a few years, all those in pre-school education will have been born in the 21st century. Anyone who sees advertisements for children's toys or visits a toy shop knows that one of the fastest-growing sectors in children's toys--certainly in educational toys--is equipment that enables even very small children to become familiar with keyboard skills and the layout of the personal computer, acquiring knowledge that they will need throughout their lives.
For those born in the 1990s and the early years of the next century, the ability to manipulate data and understand how computers operate, finding that a computer is a friend, will be as basic as the skills of reading and writing. I realise that the Minister may not be able to provide an instant solution, but will she consider encouraging all children in pre-school education to have some familiarity with computers? Of course they are not going to be producing programs--we shall not create the next Bill Gates at the age of five--but they could be familiarised with the size, shape and functions of a personal computer. That is an important part of the strategy for pre-school education.
Will the Minister also talk about discipline? The issue is important throughout the education system, but is particularly important among very young children. We are reluctant to think of children under five as capable of committing serious offences--I am sure that almost all of them are not. None the less, in preparing children for later life and for schooling, it is important that some element within the curriculum and the education with which they are provided should encourage the growth of self-discipline, a belief that they are accountable for their actions and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. When the Minister amplifies the strategy that she has provided for pre-school education, I hope that she will deal with that issue.
The final consideration that I wanted to raise has been helpfully previewed for me by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). Rural areas are in many respects different from urban areas, not least in the provision of education. The question of choice is inevitably different in rural areas. The provision of buildings requires flexibility in the planning system, as the hon. Gentleman
said. There is also the issue of how one ensures that in providing pre-school education in rural areas one builds on the best of what is already there and does not stamp out excellent existing provision.
In my constituency the local authority makes high-quality provision for many parents, and I pay tribute to it for that. We also happen to be fortunate enough to have extensive activity among voluntary groups of all sorts. There is a traditional old-world approach that encourages involvement of community groups and voluntary provision. Such an approach has to some extent died out in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, when she comes to review policy on pre-school education in rural areas, the Minister will place importance on the valuable role that voluntary groups can play in assisting direct LEA provision or providing their own forms of pre-school education.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton):
"New Labour--because Britain deserves better." The first paragraph of the section on education in the Labour manifesto states:
Mrs. Browning:
The Whip is hear-hearing. He needs to hear-hear, because there is no one sitting behind him to hear-hear on behalf of the Labour party. If education were Labour's No. 1 priority, one would have expected the Government Benches to be packed today, but, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the speeches in this debate have come exclusively--[Interruption.] I can count. I must tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that I had a grammar school education.
It is a disgrace that a party that purported to put education first has been the last--the last to speak and the last to contribute to the debate on a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has rightly brought to our attention in the Chamber this morning. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he has identified clearly what has happened in just eight weeks.
The Labour Government, in their intemperate move to overthrow one policy and replace it with another--evidently without any real preparation--have created great anxiety among parents of under-fives. The number of questions that have come from my hon. Friends for the
Minister to answer shows only too clearly that there is no stability now and no security for parents of children under five. Many questions are unanswered. I shall give the Minister plenty of time to answer them, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
I want to build on some issues that hon. Members have raised this morning, especially the interim development plan. The letter to parents from the Department states that, in the absence of an interim development plan from the local education authority, the Department will issue certificates to parents. Is there any sense of permanence about that? Is it an interim policy? Can the Minister guarantee that, whether there is LEA provision or not, the Government will continue to issue certificates on a permanent basis to parents who, for whatever reason, cannot take the option of LEA provision in their area?
I should like also to build on the point about rural provision. Like many Conservative Members, I represent a truly rural constituency. Many of our primary schools do not have the physical capacity to build a nursery class on their sites. If the aim is universal provision by 1998 or 1999, how does the Minister envisage that capital funding will be provided for rural areas in which existing primary schools cannot extend their buildings?
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned the pressure put on parents by LEA schools to send their children to their own nursery unit in order to have access to a place for their rising five at the primary school. From a sedentary position, the Whip asked me to name names. In the absence of any support from his Back Benchers, he was compelled to make a contribution on behalf of his party, something to which we look forward.
I have already received correspondence from people in Cullompton in my constituency who are concerned about the pressure put on parents. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Devonport will answer the debate. From a sedentary position, he seems to have said more than almost anyone else in the Chamber this morning. Such pressure is of great concern. If LEAs put pressure on parents, they take choice away from them and make a mockery of what the Minister has said will happen--that the Government will continue to acknowledge a role for the private sector in nursery education.
Will the Minister also respond on the following points? I have noted with great interest the Labour document "Opening doors to a learning society", which was endorsed only last year in another policy document. It said:
Another issue is the special educational needs of under-fives. The same Labour document stated:
"Education. It is Labour's number one priority."
Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport):
Hear, hear.
"Each local education authority will have restored to it the role in the provision of nursery provision outlined by the 1944 Education Act."
Will she confirm that the Education Act 1944 will be restored verbatim to the statute book? My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury asked about the role of an LEA and whether it would be placed on a fully statutory basis or would have an enabling role. It would helpful if the Minister would clarify that matter.
"We believe therefore that each local education authority should identify special educational needs (SEN) co-ordinators for early years provision."
25 Jun 1997 : Column 798
Are steps in hand for that? What progress has been made and how will the Minister liaise with the other statutory bodies involved in SEN provision in health and social services? Nursery education for children with special educational needs will have a higher cost attached to it. If it is to become an education responsibility, will there be a transfer of funds from health or social services? At present, health and social services departments run some special units which provide some form of pre-school or nursery education for special educational needs children.
I return to the Labour document and the various points made by hon. Members about people who live in rural communities. It stated:
"Any extension of nursery education is of little use to children and their parents unless it is accompanied by practical solutions to problems, such as a lack of co-ordination of those with responsibility for under-fives care and lack of effective public transport."
Are we to assume therefore that people in rural communities can now anticipate either provision for transport costs or funding for provision of transport costs, so that the Government's pledge to offer nursery education to every four-year-old can be delivered? We all appreciate that those who live in far-flung hamlets in rural communities face practical problems with regard to transport provision or costs. It would be helpful to know what the Government intend to do to help that group of parents to benefit from the pledge that they have made.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |