| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
Orders of the Day
Nursery Education and Grant-maintained Schools Bill
Lords amendments considered.
10.15 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Before we enter upon the next business, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I raise a point of order relating to it on which I seek your guidance?
As you know, the main debate today will be on a motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 2 relating to the evaluation of the nursery schools scheme.
By a letter which came into my possession, I have a copy of a letter written on 5 July to "Dear Colleague" from the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, on House of Commons paper, and not written, therefore, in his capacity as a Minister, which relates to methods of evaluation which the Government already have in hand relating to the nursery schools scheme.
I shall not go into detail, but the evaluation is already in hand and two of the documents have been placed in the Library, one some days ago and the other only today. Subject to correction from the Minister or the Secretary of State, I believe that the letter was sent to only a certain number of hon. Members, so it is purely by chance that some of us have become aware of the letter, the information that it contains and the presence of the documents in the Library which relate heavily to the matter of evaluation.
The question that I put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this. Irrespective of it being strictly in order for these matters now to be debated, is it the practice of the House for Ministers of the Crown to distribute information relating to documents in the Library which are highly germane to the merits of a motion to be moved tonight without informing all hon. Members concerned, whether or not they were members of the Standing Committee?
That is surely, at least in spirit, contrary to the way in which we should debate these matters if we are to have full information and make a sensible decision. I ask you to rule on that and to determine whether the matter should be cleared up, either on a point of order or on a motion for the Adjournment before we start the debate itself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have carefully considered the points that he has raised, but nothing that he has said calls for the intervention of the Chair. Nevertheless, all that he has said would be entirely relevant to the debate which I understand is about to take place on Lords amendment No. 2. I therefore suggest that we proceed and if he rises he will doubtless catch my eye.
Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard):
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
Mrs. Shephard:
During the passage of the Bill, we listened carefully to the arguments made in debate. As a result, several amendments have been made, relating particularly to children with special educational needs, to what should be specified in regulations, and to admissions. They are all useful improvements to the Bill. The effect of the amendment before us, however, would be to delay the introduction of full implementation of the nursery education voucher scheme by requiring an evaluation of the first year of the first phase. Such a delay would be both unnecessary and damaging.
Our policy for nursery education is based on increasing parental choice of the setting for the pre-school education of their children, rigorous quality standards through the desirable learning outcomes that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority developed last autumn, a new education inspection regime, and the injection of substantial amounts of new money--£165 million per year, £390 million over the first three years.
Extending parental choice is vital. Parents know what is best for their four year-old children--not local authorities, and certainly not Whitehall. That is why the voucher scheme puts parental choice at its centre. It allows parents to choose pre-school education in the maintained sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. We have set in place new means to make sure that the quality is good. I will briefly remind the House of them.
First, the sorts of provider that can enter the scheme are limited to maintained schools, independent schools, and private and voluntary sector institutions registered under the Children Act 1989. Secondly, all providers must work towards the set of desirable learning outcomes developed by the SCAA, which cover the six main areas of learning for children. Thirdly, all providers must give information to parents about what they do to enable parents to make informed choices. Fourthly, all providers must submit to inspection. In the case of the private and voluntary sectors, this will be a new inspection regime, under the control of the chief inspector of schools, and it will look specifically at national educational standards.
We have ensured that there are particular safeguards for children with special educational needs. The requirement for all providers to have regard to the SEN code of practice has been universally welcomed.
The popularity of the scheme is clear. More than 106,000 copies of the Department's "Next Steps" document have been issued. The help line has taken more than 43,000 calls. The scheme has been warmly welcomed. Roselyn Donovan, the head teacher of Riversdale primary school in Wandsworth, said:
Mrs. Shephard:
Over time, parents will have a choice of a place in the setting that they wish for their four-year-old. That is the point of the scheme.
The Pre-School Learning Alliance has surveyed its member playgroups to find how parents in phase 1 are benefiting from the scheme. Eighty per cent. of them think that parents value vouchers and 27 per cent. of them had increased the number of sessions that they offer, even in the first term of operation.
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside):
Will the right hon. Lady tell us how that squares with the Pre-School Learning Alliance evaluation survey of 6 June in her county of Norfolk? It stated:
Mrs. Shephard:
I should be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have some letters from people on the ground, also in Norfolk, who are providing precisely pre-school education. For example, those at the Watlington pre-school said:
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the quality of the education provided and not the fixed facilities that matter? Does she share the relief of a playgroup at Whitstable that was nearly closed because of a shortage of lavatories, despite offering
Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, at end insert--
("(2A) No arrangements may be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act on or after 1 April 1997 before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of twelve months of any grants for nursery education in the area of any local education authority made during the financial year 1996/7.")
"If private nurseries are providing a better quality of education and my parents are looking to go out there, then I want to see what they are providing, and improve my position. That's what it's about. That's what education is about."
Clare Harris, principal of the Phoenix Montessori nursery school, Kings Lynn, said:
"Parents have reacted to the scheme with delight. In poorer rural areas many struggle to send their children for a few sessions each week and to find they can now come for five is a huge bonus".
Margaret Lochrie, chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, said:
"vouchers rectify the unfairness which has prevailed up to now, that parents using schools get provision free, where others do not."
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham):
Will the voucher scheme allow parents who live in a local authority that does not have nursery provision to choose a place in a local authority school if they want one? That, too, would be choice.
"While some pre-schools have been able to increase the number of sessions, very few if any new places for four-year-olds have been created . . . funding for premises was identified as being necessary if new places are to be created."
Should we not listen to the people on the ground rather than to the administering organisations?
"To summarise our whole playgroup"--
these are people on the ground--
"feels that we have gained a great deal from the scheme and that the standard of education is already beginning to increase, it has opened our eyes as to what is or what will be missed out on if the scheme fails to go nationwide."
That failure is the hon. Gentleman's aim.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |