| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Shephard: I am delighted to have that encouraging example from my hon. Friend. The quality of teaching and of provision are obviously of key importance.
The amendment claims to be about the need for evaluation, but that claim is bogus. Opposition Members know that the Government believe that the scheme should be evaluated. We have said so consistently as the Bill has made its passage through both Houses.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. There is no doubt that the provision of vouchers is the most challenging initiative in the education of young people for many years. I am sure that all hon. Members have taken stock of the situation in their own area. We clearly will not be able to please everybody because there are many schools that are concerned about vouchers, but equally, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Pre-School Learning Alliance and pre-school playgroups welcome their advent. The crunch is that if we accept the Lords amendment, parents of four-year-old children next year will not have the opportunity of a place and that choice and opportunity will be lost for ever for those children.
Mrs. Shephard:
That is perfectly right, of course, and that point was clearly perceived by members of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, both those at the top of that organisation and those who provide service at the grass roots, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
Mr. Don Foster (Bath):
On a number of occasions the right hon. Lady has prayed in aid the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Is she therefore aware of the view of the Kensington and Chelsea branch of that organisation about the need for evaluation? Its branch secretary recently wrote:
Mrs. Shephard:
I would say that Mrs. Margaret Lochrie, the chief executive of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, does not agree with it. She has said that if the House of Commons
The evaluation has already begun. Some results are already available, and lessons are already learnt for phase 2.
We have commissioned a survey of parents in the four phase 1 areas. The results were placed in the Library 10 days ago. That survey was commissioned as a result of questions asked by Conservative Members. We had no need to place the results in the Library, but we did so.
The findings of the survey are as follows. Sixty per cent. of the parents interviewed rated the scheme positively--more than two and a half times as many as were against. That is consistent with the findings of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which were that playgroups thought that 80 per cent. of the parents valued the scheme. In Norfolk, where the survey found that parents were most likely to know the key facts about the scheme, 87 per cent. of parents rated it "quite good" or "very good", which suggests to me that, when unclouded by misinformation, parents can see the benefits of the scheme.
Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden):
Will my right hon. Friend qualify what she just said as it relates to councils which are high providers, such as Solihull, and the views of the National Association of Head Teachers? Is it true that good providers were not included in the survey that she talks about?
Mrs. Shephard:
I hoped that I had made it clear that the survey took place in pilot areas. I hope that that clarifies the matter for my hon. Friend. We are, of course, aware of the views of his local authority, of which he has told the House many times. I reassure him yet again that, where there is excellent provision, parents are likely to choose it. I have seen the provision in his local authority. As he knows, it is of high quality, and I have no doubt that, when the scheme rolls out, parents will wish to choose it. The point is that as a result of the scheme they will have the right to choose: an institutional choice will not be imposed.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
My right hon. Friend knows that parents in Dorset were keen for Dorset, which was a very low provider, to provide more nursery places. They were very angry that, last year, the Liberal Democrats on Dorset county council prevented them from getting the scheme in, and I am afraid that they will be very angry with the Government if we do not overturn this Lords amendment so as to ensure that we get the scheme in for them next year.
Mrs. Shephard:
I know that there is enthusiasm in Dorset for the scheme. My hon. Friend told me that coachloads of Dorset people are to visit Norfolk to see how the scheme is working there.
Parents have not had difficulty with the applications: 72 per cent. found the forms "very easy to complete"--so much for the bureaucratic nightmare that parents were supposed to suffer.
As I said, many parents wanted more information about the scheme. We revised the material and we made certain that it was available through the providers.
We commissioned a survey of providers in the same areas. The report was placed in the Library today. The providers found registration easy--60 per cent. found the administration "very easy" or "quite easy". Three quarters found voucher redemption "very easy" or "fairly easy" and a similar proportion found the self-assessment schedule helpful.
The report raises other points. Some providers found the administration rather time consuming, and we will consider that in making the arrangements for phase 2.
Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley):
As my right hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed it often, my area is a high provider and for 20 years has provided nursery education of the type that has only now been made available in more tardy authorities. However, the administration will cost money. Can some of the £1,100 that must be remitted be kept by my local authority to contribute to administration?
Mrs. Shephard:
I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the nursery provision in his area, and I can give him the same reassurance as I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Obviously, since parents are so satisfied with provision in his area, they will continue to wish to choose that provision. Administration costs are met centrally, of course.
Thirdly, we are analysing the issue of vouchers to parents and their redemption. Overall, 91 per cent. of the estimated number of parents have applied for vouchers. In Norfolk, that figure is 97 per cent., and in Wandsworth 96 per cent; 83 per cent. of voucher parts have been redeemed so far. We shall continue to collect and analyse data, with the results from the first two terms being collated in the autumn. They will be reviewed by the project team already in place, which will implement phase 2 with the help of an implementation advisory group drawn from local authorities, the private and voluntary sectors, grant-maintained schools and independent schools.
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend):
Is the Secretary of State aware that there are no pilot schemes in Wales, and that it would cost the Government less than the money they are putting into the voucher scheme to provide 100 per cent. coverage in Wales because there are so few four-year-olds who do not already have pre-school provision? Is she not wasting money by introducing the scheme in Wales?
Mrs. Shephard:
The hon. Gentleman knows better than I that there are several differences between Wales and England. There is also higher provision in the former, which accounts for the slightly different arrangements.
Information on evaluation will also be taken from the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the National Children's Bureau, and so on. The first inspection reports will be available in October, and the chief inspector will give us an overview in the new year.
We already know a lot about the operation of the scheme from solid data taken from surveys of parents and providers who have experience of how the scheme is working. The picture is positive. Parents are actively playing their part. There is already some expansion. In other words, it is crystal clear that there is no need to prolong the evaluation.
In any case, the amendment is not about evaluation: it is about delay, because Opposition Members do not want parents to have the choice and diversity offered by the scheme. Why should they change the habits of 17 years? Since 1979 they have voted against every measure to increase choice and diversity, and under the guise of this amendment that is what they are seeking to do now. That speaks volumes about where the Opposition's priorities lie. Delay will have an impact on many families, particularly those who currently use pre-schools. No wonder the Pre-school Learning Alliance said of the amendment:
"As we have only had 4 months of the pilot scheme it is far too early to be thinking of making any plans. We believe the monitoring should continue for over a year."
Does the right hon. Lady agree with that view?
"vote to uphold this amendment it will vote to deprive at least 200,000 four-year-olds of free pre-school education."
Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention?
"The Lords have got it wrong".
The Clackclose pre-school in Norfolk spoke for all parents and their children when it wrote to me on 1 July:
"All in all, parents want as we do, a good start in life for their children. After all it is the children that benefit from this scheme overall".
There could be no better argument for overturning this amendment. The evidence shows that the scheme is working. Delay is both unnecessary and harmful. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |