---

12.10 pm

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on having secured this debate. I commend her on the excellence of her speech in opening the debate on this important topic. It is notable that this is the third debate that we have had in the House in the past two years on pre-school or early years education. It is also notable that all three have been Adjournment debates initiated by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury(Mr. Lidington) initiated a debate on pre-schools in June 1997 and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) initiated a debate on nursery education in May 1998.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made the point that this has been a well-attended debate, although I am interested to note the gender imbalance on the Labour Benches, which suggests a slightly outdated approach to this issue. Some hon. Members hoped that they would be able to contribute to the debate and to raise their concerns. I sincerely hope that the Government will now consider giving Government time to a debate on this important topic to enable all hon. Members to express their concerns about what is happening in pre-schools, and to contribute to the real debate about what should be the intention of pre-school and early years education and what is right for children.

Children's needs must be paramount in our consideration of this issue. What matters is that we provide high-quality early years education for children, and that it is appropriate for those children. We must recognise that pre-school and nursery education are distinctly different from compulsory education at statutory age. We require appropriate provision for children at different ages.

The danger is that young children are increasingly being taken into the primary school framework. Children are being given too formal an education at too early an age. That issue was dealt with in an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 9 April. It referred to nursery children being victims of a "too much, too young" culture and that four-year-olds were at risk of burn-out because of the stresses of formal education. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden made the valid point that boys were particularly likely to be turned off school by this too early formal education.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It is important for the Government to understand that we are not suggesting that we solved this problem when we were in government. We had the problem when vouchers and the passporting of funding were introduced. Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister should carefully study counties such as Dorset, where children who are four in August are taken on for

28 Apr 1999 : Column 297

the next year, with full funding? If they are not four, they do not get funding for pre-school in the next term and have to wait until after the new year.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend has expressed a valid concern about the point at which funding cuts in and about four-year-olds who are taken into primary schools. Primary schools are increasingly encouraging four-year- olds to go to their schools by bringing pressures to bear on parents. Labour Members may deny it, but that is happening in the real world.

We should recognise that the provision must be appropriate, that children develop differently and that they have different needs. That is why we want a diversity of provision, so that parents can have a real choice. As a direct result of Government policy, we are faced with two dangers. First, children are being taken into the school framework of formal education at too early an age. Secondly, parental choice is being reduced.

Problems occurred with the nursery voucher scheme, but, far from changing it, the Government abolished it and introduced a grant scheme and early years education partnerships, compounding the problems that had begun to occur. Government figures for January 1998 show that, of four-year-olds in local authority or private and voluntary sector provision, 60 per cent. were in infant classes in maintained primary schools. That is not even 60 per cent. in reception classes: it is 60 per cent. of four-year-olds in reception and other infant classes in maintained primary schools.

Those figures also show that diversity and choice are being reduced. In January 1998, 86 per cent. of four-year-olds were in local authority provision, be it maintained nursery schools, nursery classes or infant classes, with the vast majority being in infant classes rather than in appropriate nursery provision. Only 14 per cent. were in private and voluntary sector pre-schools.

The Department for Education and Employment figures show that, by September 1998, the balance was worse. More than 89 per cent. of four-year-olds were in local authority provision, and less than 10 per cent. were in private and voluntary sector provision. The reality is that pre-schools are closing. In the past two years, 1,500 pre-schools have closed, and there is a danger of a further 1,700 pre-schools closing this year.

I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire in recognising the contribution made by pre-schools that are members of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. In its booklet about the importance of pre-schools, "No Chance to Play: No Chance to Learn", the alliance describes children in pre-schools as having

"the chance to play and learn with other children, to discover new experiences and to have the opportunity of a good educational start in life."

It says:

"Pre-schools provide a warm and caring environment and vital learning opportunities for young children. Parents benefit too".

That aspect has been touched on by hon. Members, but not in any detail, and I want to refer to the advantages for parents.

A study undertaken by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education shows that parental involvement in pre-schools leads to more assured parenting, increased confidence and widened horizons in terms of further

28 Apr 1999 : Column 298

education and training. It also encourages learning at home through reading and imaginative play. It hasan important impact in enabling many parents, predominantly women, who may not otherwise have done so, to go on to further education.

The Pre-School Learning Alliance provides for 40,000 adults--predominantly women and 93 per cent. of them over the age of 25--to enrol each year on courses developed by the alliance. There are progression routes to other qualifications, such as national vocational qualifications in early years care and education.

Pre-schools offer a gateway for parents who may otherwise not consider returning to study. In the sample of parents studied by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, almost half the participants had left school at the age of 16. Their involvement in a pre-school was giving them real opportunities for education that they otherwise would not have had.

Those opportunities are beginning to be denied to parents because the Government's policy is leading to the closure of pre-schools. Children at the age of four are being encouraged to go into reception classes in primary schools. The impact of employment legislation, particularly the loss of income for pre-schools caused by the loss of numbers, is exacerbated in a variety of ways by the increased costs of the minimum wage and the working time directive, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said.

Pre-schools are faced with the decision either to put up charges or to close. What is the Government's answer? The answer from the Minister is that there should be differential charging on the basis of income. A means-tested nursery tax is the Government's answer. They force pre-schools to close, and when they are desperately trying not to close by putting up charges the Government's answer is the equivalent of a means-tested nursery tax. That proves that the Government do not understand what is happening in the real world.

I hope that the Minister will tell us where the money that the Government have promised for pre-school education is going. In the last Education and Employment Question Time, the Minister announced investment of

"£8 billion in early education and child care",

which has subsequently been identified, and

"£8 billion in providing high-quality and affordable pre-school education".--[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1257.]

That is £16 billion. That is what the record shows: that is in Hansard. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the money is going, because it certainly is not reaching pre-schools.

Pre-schools matter. They provide an important learning environment for children through play, and they provide important benefits for parents. Government policy is closing them down, and Government should stop it.

12.20 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate. Nothing is more important to ensuring that young children can develop their full potential than the early years of their lives, and their first experiences in education. I agree with all who

28 Apr 1999 : Column 299

have spoken that we do not have enough time to debate this vital issue in the House, but I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Lady.

I am particularly delighted by another opportunity--the opportunity to remember the hon. Lady's predecessor, the late Iain Mills. He stoutly defended his constituents' interests in the House by publicly opposing, in their dying days, the Conservative Government's policies on early education, although he himself was a Conservative Member of Parliament. Solihull, through the disastrous voucher scheme, lost more money than any other local education authority, and was punished for being more successful. Iain Mills could not stomach that: he supported his authority, opposed the Tory Government and denounced the ill-conceived and damaging voucher scheme.

It was the voucher scheme that dealt the most severe blow to the private and voluntary sectors as schools competed for four-year-olds. Having been conceived with the intention of stimulating growth in those sectors, it harmed them and forced closures. Any latter-day sanctimonious defence by Opposition Members of the role of the private and voluntary sectors in early years education should be judged against their record in government. Through ideological stubbornness, they forced the closure of many early education places provided by those sectors.

---