| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept that the hon. Gentleman's personal position is quite clear--he does not approve of grant-maintained schools and therefore, as he has just said, he would not seek to give to some what others may not have. It is wrong to quote people out of context, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also wrong for someone who seeks high political office to say and preach one thing about schooling but then proceed to take decisions that he would wholly disapprove of?
Mr. Blunkett: I have dealt with that question already. It is quite clear that the hon. Member was not listening to my speech, because I was waiting for him to intervene to give his support for providing the necessary capital resources to ensure that all the schools in his constituency could have the repair and maintenance that they need.
Mr. Marlow: I do not think that my hon. Friend accepted what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman obviously approves of rich socialists moving their children long distances so that they can be educated under better Conservative education authorities. However, as an egalitarian, does he think it would be right to provide transport facilities so that the poor, the
unemployed and single-parent families could enjoy the same benefits as the hon. Member for Peckham(Ms Harman)?
Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to hear a debate principally about nursery education. Is there any chance that we might discuss that issue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen to all the speeches before he raises that question.
Mr. Blunkett: Just in case there is any doubt, I am in favour of preference exercised by all parents and no block being placed on them. I think that an hon. Member who intervened previously said that he had been to a secondary modern school; that would certainly explain some of the difficulties that he has expressed in the House on several occasions.
On 29 March 1995, the Secretary of State was speaking about the issue of borrowing and the challenge of investment of capital in all schools. She said:
Perhaps the Secretary of State and her underlings could tell the House--
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan):
Her colleagues.
Mr. Blunkett:
They may be colleagues to her, but they are underlings to me. My right hon. and hon. Friends are my colleagues.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the House why the restrictions on borrowing and the need to prevent pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement by not spending money on repair and maintenance apply only to some schools and parts of the education service and not to others.
But the Bill is primarily about nursery vouchers. It is patently obvious that there was a time when the Conservative party was wholly committed to nursery education. A certain Secretary of State committed the party to providing a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds and to the investment to provide that service. That Secretary of State became Prime Minister and that promise was broken. In fact, the party turned away from a commitment to nursery vouchers and it condemned nursery education.
The current Secretary of State has said that there was no evidence that nursery education improved the future well-being of the children and was therefore not a useful investment. In fact, it is only a year ago almost to the week since the Secretary of State sent a letter out to her colleagues suggesting that they should mark, learn and report back on Labour authorities that were spending money on nursery education because it was not a statutory service and was therefore diverting money from the rest of the education system.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East):
Will myhon. Friend confirm his commitment to setting a target that
Mr. Blunkett:
I am delighted to give that commitment. Our commitment is clear; it is not a paper promise. We will set targets to achieve, for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it, a free, properly provided, highly qualified nursery education place.
Ms Armstrong:
Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the fact that the current proposal puts in jeopardy the education of three and four-year-olds in certain local authority areas? I refer to those in which all four-year-olds are receiving a full school day and many three-year-olds--about 65 per cent. of them in my authority--are already receiving nursery education on a half-day basis.
Mr. Blunkett:
Nationally, the proposal puts at risk at least 133,000 places for three-year-olds. It undermines the role of authorities already providing places. It would be impossible to dream up a worse scheme. It provides no capital investment for facilities, and no training for those who need it to be able to deliver high quality education. It provides no resources or support for special needs nursery provision.
Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden):
A few moments ago we all heard the hon. Gentleman make a commitment to ensuring that every three-year-old has a place in nursery education, should there ever be a time when the Labour party forms an Administration.I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman told us how much it is going to cost.
Mr. Blunkett:
The first tranche of money would come from removing the bureaucratic nightmare surrounding this voucher scheme. It has been described by thehon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) as the "deadweight cost" of administration. The pilot scheme involves administrative and inspection costs of £5 million. Divided by the 17,000-odd places in the pilot authorities, it turns out that the administrative and inspection costs of each place will amount to a staggering £290. Under the full phase 2 scheme, such costs will amount to an equally staggering £187 million--more than the total amount provided in new cash by the Government for the first full year.
Mr. Robin Squire:
I saw the hon. Gentleman's press release giving these figures this morning. I am afraid that he has misunderstood the position. A great chunk of that £5 million is for inspection and setting up the inspection scheme, including recruiting and training inspectors for phase 2. Dividing the sum solely over phase 1 is therefore either ignorant or misleading.
Mr. Blunkett:
Let me get this clear: the money allocated in the pilot phase--during which the Government were going to test the applicability of the scheme--is not, according to the Minister, actually to be used on inspection or administrative costs for the pilot. It is instead to be used for the administrative and inspection costs of phase 2 of the scheme, which comes in the year after.
That being so, why are those applying to join the scheme as providers not being inspected before they come on stream as new providers? Why, instead, is light-touch inspection allowing them to self-assess their worthiness to take part in the nursery voucher scheme? The "next steps" document makes it absolutely clear that they can self-assess for what are described as "in-house purposes". They do not have to send in the validation form to qualify. Providers may have to be inspected in the first two years during the second phase--but not before they come on stream.
So are we being told that inspection costs are to be incurred for providers that are not going to be inspected, given that they can assess themselves before coming on stream? If so, I shall refer the whole matter to the National Audit Office as a scandal.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath):
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that I share his aspiration to provide high-quality early-years education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it. But is he aware that such provision would require 18,000 additional teachers, 22,000 additional ancillary assistants and--best estimates suggest--additional expenditure of£900 million? Is the hon. Gentleman's party about to commit itself to providing that much funding?
Mr. Blunkett:
The hon. Gentleman's party seems to have spent its commitment about 10 times over already. He is right about one thing though: after four years of cutting provision for nursery and primary school teachers and reducing their number in the current year by 800, the Government are ill prepared to expand the nursery scheme in coming years with properly trained and professionally provided nursery teachers.
Mr. Robin Squire:
I am trying to clarify this point for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and, if necessary, the House. We cannot carry out inspections without inspectors. It will take time to recruit them; they cannot start inspecting until the Bill receives Royal Assent. Much of the cost of establishing the framework and the training inevitably falls during phase 1.
"Public borrowing must come down if we are to keep a rein on inflation and increase prosperity and jobs."--[Official Report,29 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1042.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |