| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I shall comment. Absolutely no discourtesy to the House was intended. Sets of the documents have been placed in the Library and they were supplied to the Vote Office. I understand that they have run out, but we can certainly ensure that full sets of documents, not only those that the hon. Gentleman may have seen, but the consultation documents that preceded the drafting of the Bill, can be made available very quickly. There is no problem. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is always meticulous about such matters, and to the House. No discourtesy was intended.
Madam Speaker: The House will be obliged to the right hon. Lady.
3.39 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has two purposes. It provides for the expansion of the education of under-fives; it removes the statutory bar preventing grant-maintained schools from borrowing on the commercial market; and it builds further on the
main themes of the Government's education policy. It focuses on improvement in standards of achievement and encouragement of parental choice, diversity and the aspirations of parents and children--all parents and all children.
On all those themes--encouragement of parental choice, diversity of provision, and the aspirations of all parents for their children--the Opposition are in complete disarray. We have heard the shadow transport spokesman enunciating Labour education policy--indeed, I am interested to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his place this afternoon.It seemed earlier today that he might have been reshuffled in favour of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Let us hope that that does not come about.
Nothing now can hide, however, the basic contradiction and deep division at the heart of Labour education policy: choice and diversity for some Labour Front Benchers, but clearly stated and oft-repeated policy intentions to remove that choice and that diversity from everyone else. Small wonder that the hon. Member for City of Durham(Mr. Steinberg) has found it necessary to resign as chairman of the Labour education committee. As he says in The Guardian today:
I am not sure what sort of advertisement that is for the hon. Gentleman's education, but I quote it verbatim.
Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school at the centre of this controversy produced the first parliamentary ombudsman and three Conservative Members of Parliament--of whom I am proud to be one? It has also given a first-class start to many hundreds of young men who have succeeded in the professions and in business. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that just down the road from it is Kemnal technology college, of which I am proud to be a governor? It offers an all-round education to young men, leading to a range of technical qualifications. Are not those examples of diversity and choice in education of which all parents can take advantage?
Mrs. Shephard:
They are indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his rather striking tie--I believe that it is the tie of his old school. I am delighted to hear him speak so warmly of his old school, which is clearly an excellent school with an excellent record. It is of course part of Conservative party policy to promote such schools and to promote diversity. We do not seek to abolish them.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
The right hon. Lady spends her time at the Dispatch Box defending state schools. Can she explain why three quarters of all Conservative Members of Parliament have sent their children to the private sector--to public schools--or intend to send them to private schools? If the state sector of education is so wonderful, why do Tory Members buy their way around it?
Mrs. Shephard:
Oh dear, oh dear. The hon. Gentleman will have to do a great deal better than that. We believe in choice and diversity and in the private and public sectors. We believe in access for everyone to independent schools, through the assisted places scheme, and we believe in a diverse system: grant-maintained, local
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton):
Will the Secretary of State come back to the business of the House--that is, nursery provision--and tell us how parents can have a choice if there is no place for their child to attend a nursery school? As she will be aware, from letters that I have sent to her, in my constituency we have requested nursery places, but she is refusing to provide them. Will she explain where the choice is if there are no nursery places for people's children?
Mrs. Shephard:
Happily, but later in the debate.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
Thehon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when asking my right hon. Friend his question, was clearly coming to the aid of the hon. Member for Peckham(Ms Harman), because he clearly believes in choice--at least for himself, as he is listed as having gone to Keswick school; he then chose the Sorbonne in Paris. It is all right for him, but not all right for anybody else.
Mrs. Shephard:
That is a shame, is it not? I shall now try to make some progress.
As I said earlier, as Opposition Members should agree, the Bill should be bipartisan. There are some 8 million pupils at state schools in England and Wales. They and their parents, if Opposition Members will allow me to use the expression, have a stake in the system, because schools are accountable to parents, and run by governors who are accountable to the wider community, for the benefit of children. Those parents, governors, the wider community, and, of course, the children, are stakeholders in education, and it is the Conservative Government who have made them so.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that in my constituency I have four grant-maintained grammar schools. If children cannot be selected for admission to those schools on the basis of interview or examination, those schools will cease to be grammar schools. Does she agree with me on that?
Mrs. Shephard:
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. He makes the excellent point that camouflaged comments about interview procedures hide the intention of Opposition Members to abolish grammar schools, which some of them value for their own children.
I should like to make a little progress. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that new nursery education places will be made available for four-year-olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. Over time, there will be a nursery place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish it, in a state, independent or voluntary setting. That commitment is vividly illustrated by the £390 million of new money that we are making available for the scheme over the first three years, which with the £565 million coming from local authorities makes a total of some £750 million per year, which is a substantial investment.
Phase 1 is already under way. The first children to benefit will start in April this year.
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn):
Will the Secretary of State tell me--before anybody asks, I went to Verdin comprehensive school--whether the number of nursery places in authorities such as my own, where all four-year-olds currently get a nursery place, will be diminished through voucher schemes, which will force authorities to reduce the number of places in the public sector? People will then have no choice at all, because such places will not exist.
Mrs. Shephard:
The hon. Gentleman is completely misguided about the matter. If the quality of education provided in nursery schools in his authority is very good, parents will choose it, and local authorities will lose nothing. It is just possible, however, that some parents in his local authority area--as in mine--would like to choose between local authority, independent and playgroup provision. Let me also remind him that, at present, the quality of provision is uneven; one of the effects of the Bill will be an improvement in inspection and standards. Consumers of the service in his authority, as in all authorities, stand to gain.
Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden):
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Solihull benefits from far better provision than the Government's scheme? Will she exempt it, and other local education authorities, from such schemes?
Mrs. Shephard:
As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited nursery schools in Solihull and was very impressed. There is no doubt that, if the parents of Solihull find that provision as excellent as I did, that is what they will choose. The Solihull authority has nothing to fear.
Phase 2, which will apply throughout England and Wales, will start in April 1997.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mrs. Shephard:
I should like to make a little progress, if I may.
I shall say something about Scotland and Northern Ireland later.
The Bill's proposals for nursery education break important new ground in three respects. For the first time--across the board, in all sectors--through the new funding mechanism, parents will be in charge. They will choose the setting--state, independent or voluntary. For the first time, too, all providers in the state, voluntary and independent sectors will be required to work towards the same educational outcomes; and, for the first time, all providers will have to satisfy a common inspection regime.
"It was not me who opposed party policy".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |