| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.38 pm
Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden): I am in a somewhat difficult position as I represent an area in rural Solihull which has a scheme far beyond that proposed by the Government. The voucher scheme would disadvantage my constituents as they already have the advantage per pupil of £1,800 worth of high quality, successful and established education. The local scheme is the choice of parents and once I have cleared the matter with the Journal Office and the Vote Office I shall be presenting a petition from 12,000 parents establishing that very point. We do not want a national scheme. It is wrong to have a bureaucratic, complex and centralised system that offers every child £1,100--a system that is going to be extremely difficult to organise.
We have achieved quite a lot in Solihull and we cannot be the only ones to have done so. According to my calculations, 42 local education authorities or local councils will be disadvantaged by the scheme. We should consider what has been achieved by children aged three and three and a half.
The Government's scheme is calling into question reception classes. I shall not be voting for the Government tonight and I have made that clear to Ministers. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch(Mr. Squire), for the time that he has spent discussing the scheme with me. I appreciated his comments, but I do not agree with them and I am not going to vote for the Government. As a loyal Conservative, that is a rare event for me, but my constituents will be disadvantaged by the scheme that he is introducing. Why cannot the Minister--I spoke to him about this--provide an exemption for councils with good records and find a way to resolve the situation? I appreciate his concerns about exempting Solihull and not other councils which need to be forced into a better nursery system.
In the few minutes that I have to speak in the debate, I must tell the Minister that I not only have 12,000 signatures to a petition--I did not ask for them: it was the parents' idea--but during the past two months my advice bureaux have been dominated by the issue. In Balsall Common, for example, I normally see about 12 people with personal problems, but I found the church hall jam-packed with about 70 parents. I do not accept the Minister's argument that the local education authority triggered that response. It was the parents' legitimate desire for high quality pre-school education for their young people.
The results in Solihull for three-and-a-half-year-olds are exemplary. I cannot accept that a national scheme such as the Minister is proposing is either good for my constituents in Meriden or--I hesitate to say it--good for the country. Why cannot we give local authorities greater choice? Why cannot we give parents real choice?
In my constituency of Meriden, parents will have no choice. If they are given a voucher that is worth £1,100, but the LEA already provides nursery education that is worth £1,800--with high quality education, proper teaching staff and outstanding literacy and numeracy achievements--why on earth should we go along with the scheme that the Minister is proposing? That is why I do not intend to vote for it.
I shall not go into the issue of grant-maintained schools because I do not have enough time to do so and I must avoid cutting into my colleagues' time. In my constituency, the voucher scheme is a key issue, as indicated by the 12,000-name petition. The petition is not like those that we all receive--the usual ones that people sign and send to their Member of Parliament. Those people came to see me and presented it to me with heartfelt concern.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Meriden(Mr. Mills) because his speech has been perhaps the most important of the debate. I share the sentiment which I believe lay behind his presentation--that nursery education should not be a party-political issue. I join him in that sentiment because in Newham, where 60 per cent. of the age group are in nursery education, we have a similar appreciation of such education, albeit in different surroundings. The contrast between our constituencies, which is well known, and the feelings of parents about the existing scheme and the proposals, illustrate the non-party basis for the concern, at least among many parents who are beginning to understand what the scheme is about.
The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned a petition. Parents from Newham came to me two years ago and as a result I got in touch with the National Campaign for Nursery Education. With other organisations, it organised a petition of more than 100,000 signatures, asking for wider opportunities in nursery education. Two years later, despite not discouraging the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) from talking out my Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill, the Government have come up with a scheme. They did not do so following the articles in the press, written by the Prime Minister two years ago, saying that it was coming, but now it has come.
The scheme is not a scheme for nursery education. It is not nursery education as it is practised in Solihull and Newham. I charge the Minister to tell us why the title is
not misleading. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to early-years education. The hon. Member for Meriden referred to playgroups, and so forth. The provisions might be for early-years education, but it is not nursery education. The latter was lauded by the Minister responsible for education in a previous Conservative Administration in 1973. Circular No. 2/73, from the right hon. Lady, now Baroness Thatcher, said that we would have full-time education for 15 per cent. of three and four-year-olds, and part-time education for 35 per cent. of three-year-olds and 75 per cent. of four-year-olds, which
That plan was scrapped, but that was nursery education.
Most people in the business--although I should not describe it as such, as that is what the Government are making it--know that the quality of nursery education is defined: there are space standards and standards for the teachers, who have had two years full-time training, and there is a ratio of nursery assistants, who have also had some training.
Mr. Robin Squire:
Following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's comments, can he clarify whether he would say that reception classes are nursery education and good, and that pre-school classes--erstwhile pre-school playgroups--are, by definition, not nursery and bad? I am not trying to trap him, but to draw him out.
Mr. Spearing:
The term "early-years" covers the lot, but we know what nursery education is in terms of the curriculum, which is known and understood throughout the country, the training and the premises. It is different from playgroups, some of which are very good and some not so good. It is also different, by definition, from reception classes in infants schools, because they are part of the statutory system for the over-fives.
The Minister knows of the terrible administrative problems. Because of the administrative mess-up, parents will have to give up these coloured bits of paper for children who are going to be in the reception classes of infant schools. We do not have a plan for nursery education, although all the reports of the debate will use that term. I therefore charge the Government with being misleading and I cannot absolve them from attempting to do that deliberately.
There is also the question of space regulations. On10 January 1996, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is not here, replied to a question on the abandonment of the school space regulations, which are not good enough as it is. In a written answer, she stated:
But they will not. Why are they being changed? The standards laid down by statute for nursery schools proper are to be abandoned.
What about the providers? "Providers" is a word that we have come to use in the health service, but some of the providers of the new-style pre-school education, whatever
form it may take, will be proprietorial. They will not be, as they are in Solihull and Newham, local authorities. They will not form a pattern of local nursery schools attempting to meet the needs of local communities. There will be difficulties over the standards that they will have to maintain.
The documents to which I referred in a point of order earlier were in the Vote Office. There was some misunderstanding about that and I am glad to make that clear to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). However, his document, "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps"--a misleading title, if ever there was one--says that vouchers will give
It goes on and on, but the Government are not talking about real nursery education.
In The Sunday Telegraph yesterday there was an article headed:
with a subsection entitled,
The article states:
The Pre-school Learning Alliance is doing good work. I think that it was originally known as the Pre-school Playgroups Association. There is a big distinction between playgroup provision and the present statutory arrangements for nursery education. The Government should use a different term because there is a danger that they will devalue and ultimately destroy the standards of nursery education as commonly understood at present. There is much evidence for that.
The Pre-school Learning Alliance, which was mentioned earlier, says in its brief:
So even the alliance has some reservations.
What about inspection? If it is to be done by Ofsted, why can it not be linked with the present system of primary school inspection? Primary and nursery schools overlap in reception classes. Instead, the Bill contains four and a half closely typed pages dealing with
Talk about bureaucracy--surely that is what is created by not using the existing schools inspection system to deal with the pre-school scene.
What does the National Association of Head Teachers--which, with the except of heads of nursery schools, has no vested interest in the age group apart from a general one in education--have to say about the inspection system? In its brief, it says:
That is the view of highly qualified professional teachers in a well known and respected association. It continues:
I question that, but we shall see what the Minister has to say; I would say "already active in early-years education". The document continues:
I do not suppose that the Government would go as far as that, but the system of inspection is shown to be extremely controversial. There will be what the newspapers would call a huge shake-up in the system.
Conservative Members have been talking about parental choice. We all know what parents want. It was well expressed to me by a Conservative Member who is not here now in respect of another education matter some time ago. Those of us who are parents would agree that most parents want a system of local education that meets the needs of all the children of the area. The morality of parents and teachers means that they cannot ignore the effects of education for their children in their schools on that of children in other schools. Education must meet the total need of the community and especially the needs of any particular child at the time of its education.
A coherent framework is needed. Parents have to put themselves into the hands of professional teachers. Of course there must be consultation, co-operation between home and school through parents associations, and a degree of choice, so long as the standards are equivalently high. That is the point. That would lead to an education system worthy of name. If such a system was available to 100 per cent. of children in Solihull and Newham, it would be a worthy system.
Concern has been expressed by organisations such as Save the Children, Barnardo's, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Children's Society. Those organisations state:
That Act has been mentioned several times already.
Finally, there is the question of who will be the providers. I suggest that there will be a huge new range of providers. I hope that the Minister will tell me in the next hour if my scenario is wrong. It may be that it is, but we will not know the detailed small print. We will know neither in the House nor in Committee because, instead of saying that the Minister must provide those facilities for early-years education by issuing vouchers, clause 1(1) says:
All the details about inspection, standards, liaison, administration and contracts are considered "arrangements" and need not come before the House.
Negative instruments, such as the two that we sent away at 3.30 today, often come before the House. They deal with all sorts of matters, such as animals, roads, speed limits and destination signs, which are for scrutiny rather than debate. Civil servants issue them and hon. Members know that they will be debated upstairs in Committee or appear on some sort of list against which we can pray. They are public matters.
"will require 250,000 additional full-time equivalent places in 1982."
"The final version of the regulations and the circular will take account of a number of detailed points raised. The requirements in the current regulations that bear on the health, safety and welfare of pupils will be retained."--[Official Report, 10 January 1996;Vol. 269, c. 274.]
"parents purchasing power to choose a place that suits their child's needs and to insist on high standards . . . There is a wide consensus about the importance of nursery education".
"School that's a home from home",
"How to set up a nursery school".
"The Diploma in Playgroup Practice from the Pre-School Learning Alliance is the minimum legal requirement. Fifty per cent of your staff must be qualified. A child-to-staff ratio of 8-1 is the maximum allowed; 6-1 is more workable."
"Vouchers will provide help with revenue costs but are unlikely to provide sufficient income to meet the costs of new premises and other capital expenditure associated with the expansion of provision."
"Nursery education grants: inspections etc."
"The system of self assessment that is proposed will mean that providers could function and receive public money for a year before they are inspected or validated. The voucher system is wide open to
22 Jan 1996 : Column 97fraud and abuse. Even expensive auditing and inspection arrangements could not ensure that the proper use of public funds was safeguarded."
"The Government envisages the possibility of umbrella organisations, already active in nursery education"--
"acting as OFSTED's agents in organising the inspection programme and awarding contracts to inspectors. The NAHT strongly believes that, if the proposals are to be implemented, independence in awarding contracts must be safeguarded. The NAHT could not support a situation where, for example, an organisation was awarding contracts to inspect its own members."
"The coalition organisations recommend that one common standard of inspection, regulation, monitoring, staffing ratios, premises and equipment should apply to all voucher-redeeming services for four year old children, based on the requirements of the Children Act 1989."
"The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the making of grants in respect of nursery education."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |