| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
- Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Rural Employment (Young People)
1. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives are being pursued to assist in providing employment opportunities for young people residing in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [20122]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): The Department's full range of employment and training opportunities is available to young unemployed people in rural areas.
Mr. Llwyd: I am afraid that that reply does not cut any ice in Wales or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The Minister will be aware of the recently published White Papers. I have copies of all three of them here. There are 334 pages about assisting people in rural areas.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Have you read every page?
Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I have. I am most dismayed to find that there is nothing in those White Papers about the creation of employment for young people in rural areas. When will the Government take that subject seriously?
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman may have considered those White Papers, but he clearly has not read them carefully. The White Papers do lay out proposals. The English one, for example, clearly states that the Government are considering ways of stimulating new businesses in rural areas. The Government believe that jobs are created by successful businesses. The Government cannot create jobs on their own--that requires successful, profitable business. The Government's job is to create the environment in which businesses can start and flourish. If the hon. Gentleman considers those documents carefully, he will find that there are clear statements of the Government's desire to encourage businesses to do just that.
Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a rural constituency such as mine, many young people earn their living in tourism, retail, the hotel industry, farming and small manufacturing industries? Are those not exactly the sort of businesses that would be decimated by the minimum wage and by the adoption of the social chapter? Is not resisting those measures--as the Government have done so far--the best thing that the Government can do to keep young people in employment?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that my constituency is similar to his: it is also a large rural area. It is extremely important that we do not destroy jobs by implementing the policies that he describes. The minimum wage is recognised by every external commentator as a destroyer of jobs, yet it is still espoused by the Labour party, as is the social chapter, which the Government have clearly stated that they will never accept. The real hypocrisy,
however, occurred when the Leader of the Opposition gave the Confederation of British Industry the impression that he could pick and choose in the social chapter. The social chapter is dealt with by majority voting. Britain could be outvoted and have such a job-destroying measure imposed against its will.School Accommodation
2. Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of school accommodation to cater for the increase in pupil numbers in 1996-97. [20124]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places rests with local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools. It is for them to decide their priorities for capital spending.
Mr. O'Hara: That answer really will not do. The nation's parents and governors are well aware that there is a backlog of minimum health and safety requirements in schools for which capital funds are needed, amounting now to billions of pounds, and Government capital spending has been halved in the past 20 years. Is not the Minister well aware that the chief inspector of schools has said that one in seven primary schools and one in five secondary schools are already suffering from cramped and otherwise inadequate accommodation? Are not the regulations that went through the House this week a pure blind to remove the Government's embarrassment at not finding the funding to meet schools' minimum requirements?
Mrs. Gillan: I detect a spending pledge there. In fact, Government capital support for schools for 1996-97 will be almost £700 million--a 6.7 per cent. increase on 1995-96. What the nation is waiting for, and what should cause the Labour party embarrassment, is Labour's education record. Perhaps it will be explaining to the teachers in Sheffield schools how it managed to make a blunder costing £1 million which resulted in the teachers saying that they lacked confidence in every stage of the education process in Sheffield. I shall not take any lectures from the Labour party, which cannot put its own house in order.
Sir Irvine Patnick: There is more. I have recently received a letter from Sheffield city council, with a copy of a--
Mr. John Marshall: Was it a council tax demand?
Sir Irvine Patnick: No, it was not a council tax demand. It was a resolution condemning the hypocrisy of leading Labour politicians--I have it here and anyone can see it--in seeking privileges for their own children which they deny to other people. Does that not show that, for once, Sheffield has got it right?
Mrs. Gillan: It does not surprise me. Labour's education policies are in a shambles. Labour Members say one thing and do another. I agree with the teachers in Sheffield who say that they lack confidence in every stage
of the process--the leadership, the planning and the allocation and delivery of funding to Sheffield's education system. That is the true picture of Labour, and the true picture of what Labour would be like in power.
Mr. Spearing: Will there not be some need for new educational construction in the coming years, particularly in secondary education, due to the proper requirements of the new national curriculum? As the Government are publishing new guidelines in the summer, would it not be appropriate for them to work out the minimum cost per place which would be appropriate following the guidelines? If they do not do that, will not some other official agency do it and show up the Government's irresponsibility in the matter?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman has participated in many debates on the subject, and he should be aware of the cost multipliers that are used, which are in excess of those areas that are laid out in the draft guidance. The cost multipliers are based on the real cost of providing new places and they are derived from an analysis of real projects. They represent a level being achieved by about a third of authorities and there is no reason why the rest cannot do the same.
Nursery Voucher Scheme
3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number of new places to be provided and at what cost under the nursery education voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [20125]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The Government's nursery voucher scheme will mean that, over time, there is a nursery education place for every four-year-old. The Government are injecting £390 million of new money into nursery education for four-year-olds over the next three years.
Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of eligible parents have already applied for nursery vouchers in the four trial areas, thus proving the effectiveness of the scheme? Is she aware that, in my constituency, Labour-controlled Ealing council is withholding nursery provision money for 40 children whose parents want to send them to Wood End infant school because that school is grant-maintained? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, currently before the House, is excellent because it will take away that miserable power from local authorities, which they are abusing so much in Ealing and elsewhere?
Mrs. Shephard: I can confirm that 70 per cent. of parents have completed their forms--four out of five in Norfolk. I can also confirm that, by this time next year, there will be no room for councils such as Ealing to withhold nursery education from children whose parents want it.
Mr. Kilfoyle: Although we accept that the Secretary of State will extol the virtues of market forces in supplying nursery places--despite her better instincts and because
she is being driven by the No. 10 policy unit--what will she do about provision in areas, say a rural village, where the market does not provide places but where parents have vouchers to use?
Mrs. Shephard: Welcome to the self-described working-class hero. Given the hon. Gentleman's rapid conversion last night from working-class hero to-- I think--Mohammed Ali, it can be only a matter of time before he is converted to market forces too. We know that Labour Members oppose choice in education and prize the interests of institutions above those of parents. The point of the nursery voucher scheme is that it will encourage many providers to register for it, as has already happened. Six hundred providers have registered to join the scheme from the private and voluntary sectors-- 40 of them are new providers. We certainly expect those providers, combined of course with local education authority provision and partnerships between the various sectors, to provide for the needs of our four-year-olds through the nursery voucher scheme.
Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour local education authorities that have refused to take part in this year's pilot scheme are denying places to a number of four-year-olds for purely ideological reasons? Is that not an absolute disgrace? Is the scheme not extending parental choice in a real and radical way? Once parents have experienced it, they will never want to go back to the old way of doing things.
Mrs. Shephard: Yes, it is indeed perverse in the extreme that such local education authorities should oppose a scheme that is investing a total of £750 million in good-quality education that is inspected, with proper educational outcomes, for four-year-olds. As I have already been quoted as saying, such opposition is indeed pathetic.
4. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to top up the value of a nursery voucher for children with special educational needs. [20126]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a differential nursery voucher value for children with special educational needs.
Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that parents of children with special educational needs will be more than disappointed by that answer and the answer that he gave in last night's debate on the subject? It is miserable and miserly. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) that nursery education for such children will require extra funding? What is the Minister prepared to do about providers who will be unwilling to take on those children for £1,100 worth of nursery vouchers?
Mr. Squire: If the hon. Lady takes the trouble to read our proceedings in Committee, she will realise that not only the Government but the Opposition spokesman and virtually all outside groups that specialise in special educational needs recognise that the way ahead is not
through a differential voucher. One of the many benefits of the voucher system is that it should enable earlier diagnosis of special needs--which I am sure she and the parents to whom she has referred will welcome. That does not change the underlying funding of LEAs. What the House approved last night was the granting of powers to LEAs that will be reflected in the same way as other LEA powers in the annual standard spending assessment. That will particularly assist children who are short of full statementing but who have special educational needs.
Ms Estelle Morris: It is becoming increasingly clear that nursery special needs provision is the most flawed aspect of a very flawed scheme; there are no more resources and inadequate inspection. Will the Minister reassure the House today that there will be no watering down of the special needs code of practice as it will be applied to nursery schools? In particular, will he confirm that that very important early assessment under the code will continue to be done by fully qualified teachers?
Mr. Squire: To repeat in part what I said to the House yesterday, the commitment to the code of practice, or something similar that better reflects the different nature of voluntary providers, is there and up-front. It is understood by the groups that I have met on behalf of children with special needs--[Interruption.] It is not a laughing point. Labour Front Benchers are smiling, but I promise them that this is a serious point. There may yet be aspects of the code of practice that do not exactly transfer into the different settings, but I have made a pledge to the House--I repeat it now--that, in those circumstances, an equivalent code will be produced, and it will certainly apply to the other providers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |