| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as this is an important area. Is it not a fact that, under the validation system set out in the next steps document from the Department for Education and Employment, those seeking to provide will simply have to self-assess their organisation and fill in the validation form for their own--as it is described in the document--in-house purposes, and that the inspection costs for phase 1 can be assumed only to be a preparation for the second phase, as we heard earlier? If that is the case, is not the National Audit Office in a position to examine whether we are using £5 million for 17,000 places in an inappropriate
manner? Is it not right for the Audit Commission, which is to report next week, to draw attention to the fraud that could arise from the system?
Mr. Squire: I hope that other hon. Members will not intervene for a similar length, or I shall have to scrap the rest of my speech.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, the short answer is no. The provision, as I sought to explain earlier, restricts those who take vouchers to LEA-maintained classes or private schools registered with the Department, essentially, the voluntary providers--those registered under the Children Act 1989. That check is provided up front, as it were. The providers themselves must agree to be inspected, and must publish a significant amount of information, as well as going through the self-assessment schedule mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
I repeat what I said earlier. It is very simple. Either the hon. Gentleman can go along with the thrust of his theory, and maintain that on 1 April 1997 thousands of parents will find that good-quality existing providers cannot take vouchers because they have not yet been inspected, or--however reluctantly--he can agree with us that the balance of the argument lies in allowing the scheme to proceed, and ensuring that, as quickly as Ofsted can arrange it, people are trained to carry out inspections that will give us the quality that we consider essential. The hon. Gentleman has that choice, but we strongly believe that it is important not to disrupt existing good provision.
The second myth that the hon. Gentleman attempted to peddle was that there would be a million pieces of paper--or whatever the number was.
Mr. Squire:
The figure has gone up. There is inflation for you.
As I made clear, the vast majority of parents who choose just one provider of nursery education will hand over just one piece of paper at the beginning of each term. That does not strike me as bureaucratic, and there certainly will not be millions of pieces of paper.
I can tell the hon. Member for Devonport that early-years inspections for private education will take place at least every four years. He will understand that other inspection of private schools is not a matter for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Newham, South and myhon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the possibility of fraud. My hon. Friend dealt succinctly with the checks that we are instituting to make fraud less likely. I shall not deal with matters with which the House would not expect me to deal, but, for the benefit of those who may not have been present when my hon. Friend spoke, let me repeat that each voucher will have the child's name printed on it, and each will have a unique serial number. Vouchers will normally be issued only in respect of children on the child benefit database, and payment will be triggered only by vouchers that have been issued legitimately. I do not think that it assists a rational discussion of our proposals if Opposition Members imply that a significant fraud is about to be perpetrated.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) disappointed me. He has said outside the House--as he is perfectly entitled to--that no extra places will arise as a result of
the Bill. For some reason, however, shyness overtook him this afternoon, and he spoke merely of a gimmick rather than of no extra places. I have news for the hon. Gentleman: already, all four phase 1 authorities are clear that extra places will be available from 1 April which were not available from last April. If that comes as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, it may be because elementary economics are not the Liberals' strong suit. Broadly speaking, however, if extra funds are provided other things tend to happen, and that has been the case in this instance.
Serious points were raised about phase 1 and the extent to which it is a pilot scheme. Let me answer them as best I can. We shall examine a number of matters duringphase 1. We shall, of course, examine the operation of the encashment of vouchers, and, indeed, the value of vouchers. We shall consider whether there should be regional variation. Several points have been put to me; I shall deal shortly with the point made by my righthon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), when I talk about special needs. He also raised the point about the voucher's value, which I shall cover.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South):
Will the Minister guarantee that the low value of the vouchers at present, which has been widely criticised, will not, under any circumstances, be reduced?
Mr. Squire:
I am not standing at the Dispatch Box today talking of guarantees on the values of vouchers.I have already said--you, Madam Speaker, heard me, as did the House--that the question of the value of the voucher is being reviewed. We will have at least two issues of the voucher during April and for the September term, where we will be able to start taking into account how that value operates. It would be foolish for either the hon. Gentleman or his party to suggest from that answer that the Minister is threatening a reduced voucher value. I have made it clear that I am talking about reviewing the value of the voucher.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth about the value of phase 1. Some aspects of phase 1 are inevitably medium term--the question of how the Ofsted framework operates comes to mind. It is a medium-term thing--it will take two or three years to evaluate. Some hon. Members want a long-term view. Self-evidently, how phase 1 leads, in turn, to an improvement in key stage 1 and keystage 2 results is, by definition, a long-term matter. Hon. Members on either side of the House can say, "At any one stage, we must have this information before a pilot becomes live." I am satisfied that, on the things that can be reviewed in a relatively short time, we will have sufficient information.
Ms Hodge:
Will the Minister give the House the reassurance and guarantee that all children aged four in the four pilot authorities in phase 1 will be guaranteed a place in a nursery?
Mr. Squire:
The hon. Lady, who knows better than that, is being foolish. She knows as well as I that no magic wand can on 31 March suddenly create 100 per cent provision. I will tell her this, however, because she is
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who has a distinguished record in education, the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), the spokesman for Plaid Cymru, raised the issue of special needs, which is important. We are making it clear that all providers will need to make clear what their admission arrangements are and what their staffing is with regard to special needs pupils. It of course remains the case that LEAs retain responsibility for funding of statementing. I will carefully consider the question of a separate value for special needs during Committee and outside it. I hope that my righthon. Friend will accept that as a sincere commitment. On his other point, he wants the Bill to be extended to three-year-olds. The Bill has been deliberately drafted so that it may be extended at some time to three-year-olds.
A brief word for my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who was present earlier--[Hon. Members: "He is here.] I am so sorry. He has moved--he is a highly mobile Member for Meriden and an honourable man. As he said, I have met him several times. He knows that he and I differ on the Bill's impact, which I suppose will not be demonstrated finally to our proof until it is enacted. With all sincerity, we would not introduce the measure if we considered in the slightest that it would have the impact--
Madam Speaker:
Order. The Minister's words will not be recorded unless he speaks to the House rather than to individual hon. Members.
Mr. Squire:
I apologise, Madam Speaker.
We would not introduce the legislation if we thought that it would in any way have the outcome that myhon. Friend fears.
May I turn quickly to grant-maintained borrowing and then I shall come to the heart of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |