| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Hodge: I will not give way. I have only a few minutes left, and I want to deal with the issues that have been raised.
When this Government took office, we replaced competition with a planned partnership approach that now covers both early education and child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) said, we need to plan our services for young children.
I am happy to defend our record in government. In our manifesto, we promised that every four-year-old whose parents wanted a free part-time early education place would be entitled to one, and we fulfilled our commitment. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is wrong about that. We also said--the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was slightly wrong about this--that we would set a target for three-year-olds. We have done that: we are committed to doubling the number of free places for three-year-olds to 66 per cent. by 2002, and we will achieve that target. We are bringing together early education and child care to provide a seamless and coherent service for families, built around children's needs.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hodge:
No. I will complete my speech.
Let me say this to the hon. Member for Meriden. Of course the interests of the child are central to our concerns; it is because we are putting those interests at the centre of our policy that we are building a proper infrastructure for both early education and child care.
Even pre-schools in church halls, which the hon. Lady mentioned, should not be there to support church finances. They should be there to support young children.
Ms Hodge:
May I deal with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
We value the contribution of pre-schools, particularly because of the unique quality that they bring to the early education sector: parental involvement, with all that it means to the development of young children. I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead about that. We know that pre-schools are concerned about closures; we know that they blame closures for the loss of four-year-olds to maintained nurseries; we know that they are worried about the minimum wage. We do not agree with them about the figures relating to closures, but my officials are holding discussions with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see how we can reconcile our two views. We are taking steps to ensure that both sectors can contribute to the expansion of early years education and child care.
We instruct partnerships to ensure that their plans provide for help for the voluntary and private sectors. Last year, we gave £500,000 to ensure that pre-schools were able to sustain their provision, and we are giving a further £500,000 this year. We have introduced the working families tax credit, which will help individuals with the cost of school care and enable schools to raise their fees. I think it is inappropriate for anyone working with children to be paid less than the minimum wage: our children are too precious. We shall be conducting a review, which will show not what is closing pre-schools, but how the Pre-School Learning Alliance can contribute to the expansion of early years education.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will the Minister give way?
Let me deal with some of the issues relating to quality. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that some four-year-olds are going to school too early. In my view, it does not matter where children are; what is important is the experience that they undergo, the qualifications of those who work with them and the adult-child ratios involved. That is why we are addressing all the issues of quality that have been raised today.
We are looking at the curriculum, and we have presented proposals for the reform of desirable learning outcomes. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bath welcomed the foundation stage. Our emphasis is on pre-learning schools, and on the importance of children learning to speak, to listen, to concentrate and to work in a group; but we must also recognise that, in the foundation stage, there is a difference between a three-year-old and a rising six. The curriculum must reflect children's development.
As the hon. Member for Meriden said, people are crucial. That is why we have established a national training organisation. It is why we are creating a qualification framework, and putting a large amount of money into training. We are also enhancing the status and importance of early years work, not least through the introduction of the minimum wage and early years
education degrees. We are reviewing regulation and inspection, as well as the child protection and data protection issues raised today. We are supporting parents in raising quality, through the sure start programme, excellence centres and other initiatives mentioned in the debate. Quality is essential to early years education. I am glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House accepted that today, and I assure them that we are acting accordingly.
I am delighted that we have had this short, but important, debate on crucial issues. I am grateful to those who have taken part, and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Meriden. We have a good story to tell. This Government recognise the importance of early years education. They have firmly put their money where their mouth is, providing a massive expansion of resources: as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, we are investing £8 billion over the next four years.
The Government have already fulfilled their pledge to provide a free nursery place for every four-year-old whose parents want one. They have embarked on an ambitious increase in the number of places for three-year-olds. They have not merely talked about a national child care strategy; they are creating one. Over the first 20 months of the Government's life, they have created more new child care places than the last Government managed to create during their long 18 years in office.
Investing in the early years of a child's life makes sense. It makes sense for the child, ensuring that we give all children the opportunity to develop their full potential. It makes sense for society, helping us to build an inclusive society by promoting success and preventing alienation and failure. It makes sense for the taxpayer, in that for every pound that we invest in a child's early years we shall save many pounds later on everything from support for a child with special educational needs to the payment of income support.
We will pursue our policies on early years education. They are right, important and necessary. We shall be happy to be judged on our record, and our achievements, in this crucial area of public policy.
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth):
I am very glad to have been able to secure this debate on the role of Scotland's legal system in implementing charging policy in road deaths involving vehicles. This may very well be the final opportunity to debate a matter that, after 1 July, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it is appropriate that the debate should be on such an important issue. Although the Road Traffic Act 1991 is a United Kingdom responsibility, prosecution of the law in Scotland, under the separate Scottish legal system, is a devolved matter.
Many of my colleagues have sent messages of support for the debate, although--for a variety of reasons, which hon. Members will appreciate--they have not able to attend it. Nevertheless, I am pleased that so many hon. Members are able to be here.
On 18 September 1998, Steven Dekker, my constituent and near neighbour, celebrated his 24th birthday with his family and his girl friend of six years, Gail. On Saturday, 19 September, Gail and Steven spent the day in Glasgow, shopping, enjoying being together and planning their future together.
As they drove home to Cumbernauld, at 6 pm, on a bright, clear evening, a van being driven the wrong way on a single carriageway hit them head on, killing Steven and injuring Gail. The collision occurred as Steven came round a bend, on a one-way single carriageway, with no chance of his taking any avoiding action.
I am pleased that Steven's parents, his sister Vivien, Gail and other members of the family are here for today's debate. I should like to express their and my appreciation to the Minister for sparing time to meet them earlier today.
In the past two years, the issue has been debated in the House on several occasions, and in two notable Adjournment debates. One of those was initiated by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
As parliamentarians, we are faced with a significant problem that we have the power to deal with. The House, after investigation and debate, passed a law--the 1991 Act--that established the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The charge is simple and clear, and it should be a powerful weapon in deterring very bad driving. However, Steven Dekker's death has taught me--and, so far, more than 2,000 constituents who have signed a petition--that the Crown Office is failing properly to charge the very people for whom the charge was designed.
The Crown Office decided to prosecute Andrew Wilson, the man who killed Steven Dekker, not with death by dangerous driving, but with the lesser charge of careless driving. The proceedings in court lasted 15 minutes.
In June 1997, Steven Dekker graduated with a BA (Hons.) degree from Stirling university. He was ambitious. He had been employed for a year with British Airports Authority as a graduate trainee manager. He was one of eight people selected, from 1,300 applicants, for
the position. He was a people person, and was liked well by all who knew him. He loved all sport. He played golf, football and ran in half-marathons. In short, he loved life.
Andrew Wilson was returning home from a planned trip. He ignored the safety of his own children from the very moment that he left his home, transporting a six-year-old child in the front of his van, and nine and six-year-old children in the rear of his van, none of whom were seated or restrained by seat belts. In the rear of the van were also motor-cross bikes, unrestrained.
Andrew Wilson ignored eight directional road signs, to turn across chevron markings and road arrows and travel the wrong way down a main road. In court, his defence agent made it clear that he did not make a spur of the moment decision. He stopped his van, which he drove for a living, and consulted with his fellow passenger, who was a lorry driver by trade. Then, after a few moments, he made a U-turn, across solid-line chevron markings and against road arrows, to travel the wrong way on the main road into Cumbernauld. My constituents, and those who have seen the evidence and photographs, are incredulous. The question is: Where on earth did he think he was going?
In court, the procurator fiscal revealed that Andrew Wilson was found by police at the scene,
12.30 pm
"wandering around in a dazed state saying it was my fault I was going the wrong way".
In court, his defence agent said that Andrew Wilson was lost. Had the Crown Office levelled a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, all the facts and arguments would have been heard.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |