§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)It is a very great privilege for me to be the first Member on the Floor of the House to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on her elevation to the Establishment. She assumes office equipped with a wide variety of practical experience of all kinds, but especially in nursery education. She will add a refreshing dash of colour and verve to the Ministerial ranks in the Department. I only hope that the force which burned inside her when she was on the back benches will not be quenched by the burdens of Ministerial office. I am sure they will not be. It is worth pointing out that, probably for the first time in the history of public education in the United Kingdom, we have three lady Members of Parliament holding Ministerial office, all of them with a genuine working-class background of education.
It is almost exactly three years since the Plowden Committee's Report, "Children and their Primary Schools" was presented to Parliament. It is a great pity that there has not been a full day's debate on this invaluable Report. Indeed, I was inspired to seek to obtain this debate precisely because I had not read it as well as I might have done up to the summer holiday.
Chapter 9 of Vol. 1 of that Report made some pertinent comments on the provision for education of children before the age of compulsory education—that is, up to 5—and pointed out what many interested in education and otherwise are apt to forget—that the under-5s are the under-privileged of our education system. From 1944 onwards we have made increased provision throughout the education service—in primary schools, in secondary schools of all kinds, in the universities, in technical education, in further education, and now the open university. All this has been done despite the gloom and pessimism of the two "Black Papers" which have been referred to repeatedly in the House and outside.
1122 However, nothing has been done for the under-5s. The Plowden Report observed that the proportion of children attending any form of school before the age of 5 had hardly changed between 1930 and 1965. The figure was about 5 per cent. in 1932 and rather less than 7 per cent. in 1965.
The reason there has been no advance in provision for the under-5s is that it has been argued by successive Governments that children within the statutory ages of compulsory attendance—that is, 5 to 15—must have a prior claim on the limited resources in teachers and cash. That is a very strange doctrine that should have been challenged more strongly than it has been in the past, since all educational and child psychologists tell us that the most impressionable years in a child's life are precisely those years from 0 to 5. Not only has there been no significant growth in nursery provision for 30 years and more, but the location of nursery schools and classes has borne no obvious relationship to needs.
My attention has been drawn to an article in the magazine New Society of 9th October, by Tessa Blackstone, a lecturer in social administration at the L.S.E. She emphasised the wide variations in the provision of maintained places between one county and another: 70 per 1,000 of the child population between the ages of 2 and 4 in Cambridgeshire, 68 per 1,000 in London, 27 per 1,000 in Lancashire, 1 per 1,000 in East Suffolk, and less than 1 per 1,000 in other places, including Leicestershire.
In the county boroughs the disparity was on a similar scale. The highest in the county boroughs was 199 in Leicester, and the highest numbers, generally speaking, were in the North and the Midland industrial towns and also in the provision for social classes 4 to 5. The lowest provision in the county boroughs was in Eastbourne, Wallasey and Solihull.
The writer of the article could find no obvious correlation between the amount of provision and the need for it on grounds of inadequate housing, large families, the number of working women, and so on. She concluded that the policy of the Government—I presume that she meant the urban aid programmes—will alter the current distribution and bring to an end the haphazard growth which has characterised development up to the 1123 mid 1960's, and I hope that proves to be right.
Whatever might happen, there is an enormous leeway to be made up. As I have said, Plowden showed in 1965 that only 7 per cent. of all children under 5 were receiving some form of nursery education, either school or class, and even when the Government's urban aid programme is carried out, both the first and second phases, the percentage will not be significantly higher. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the figure, but I do not think that it will be very much higher than the 7 per cent. referred to by Plowden.
When we get an increase in the total number of full-time nursery places—10,626, I think, is the figure, and I do not want to belly-ache unduly about it—the increased provision will be a significant landmark in post-war educational history. For the first time, resources have been made available specifically to expand nursery building and will attract 75 per cent. grant.
Will my hon. Friend say what will be the total cost of this? As I understand, the first phase of the urban aid programme for nurseries will be £1.35 million, which was announced last January The second phase will cost about £1.335 million, making a total of £2.685 million.
According to the Ministry Press notice dated 4th July, 1969, the Government have decided to increase the amount to £4½ million. That is good as far as it goes, but looked at in the context of the total education bill of £2,000 million plus it represents a tiny fraction of 1 per cent. of the total. In addition, there is provision for day nurseries, which are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, and some children's homes which are the responsibility of the Home Office. There is also provision for family group homes and family service units, and I know that my hon. Friend is interested in the fact that play groups appear in the programme for the first time.
Perhaps I might add a brief word about that. The joint circular issued on 7th February indicated in paragraph 13 how local authorities could help voluntary bodies. The aid that the local authorities give will qualify for the 75 per cent. grant, and the departments con- 1124 cerned point out that it might be desirable for local authorities to consider the appointment of play group advisers, with salary eligible for grant.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can give details of the response to that from local authorities. A number, notably Conservative-controlled, are using the excuse of the credit squeeze for not doing what they should be doing, and some will be singularly inactive. Unless pressure is brought to bear on them, the response will not be what my hon. Friend would wish. I hope that she will use her powers and influence in the Department to see that they do what is required and expected of them.
One point in this context is that the local authorities which go in for this kind of activity have to convince the Department of the social need for play groups. That is an expression incapable of exact definition. I have in mind my own area, and no doubt the same applies to my hon. Friend's. In any new town or relatively new community or development area where there is a growing demand for young female labour, there is a similar demand for this kind of facility. The education authorities in such areas will have to be able to convince the Department that, for the purposes of qualifying for the 75 per cent. grant, there is a social need for this kind of facility.
Inevitably, from the purely economic point of view as well as the educational one, more and more resources will have to be made available for nursery education. The Plowden Report comments on the fact that more and more married women are going out to work. The numbers are increasing all the time. The figures given in Plowden showed that, between 1931 and 1951, the proportion of married women in employment doubled. I suspect that it has gone up very fast since those figures were made available. It is true that not all of them have young children, but many have, and their numbers are growing. It is arguable whether it is good or bad for these women to go out to work, but they are going out, and no one can stop them. This is very much a problem in my own constituency.
One of the important points to consider in this context is that the contribution made by such women to the national 1125 economy should be offset against the cost of providing nursery schools and classes. There are professions which are becoming increasingly staffed by part-time married women. I have in mind the nursing profession and, to some degree, the teaching profession. These women are making a significant and valuable contribution to the economy, and that should be offset against the cost of increased nursery provision.
The Plowden Report made a tentative estimate of between £16 and £22 million a year as being the contribution of married women to the economy by 1979. But, whatever the value attached to it in economic terms, the social and educational advantages of increasing the provision of nursery accommodation are overwhelming, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will share that view. Clearly, parents believe it passionately.
I believe that the demand for nursery facilities far exceeds the supply. The Plowden Report pointed out that in one urban area where there were 1,818 children attending nursery schools and classes, there was a waiting list of 5,410—in other words, for every one nursery school place there were three children waiting—and in two-thirds of the nursery schools the waiting period between application and admission was at least one year.
It is regrettable, in my view, that wealthier parents can usually buy places at independent nursery schools. The New Society article to which I referred pointed out that in the Home Counties, with predominantly middle-class and relatively wealthy parents, there is the largest independent provision, and in the county boroughs the lowest maintained provision was at places like Eastbourne and Ipswich, which were also among the highest providers of independent places.
I repeat, there is an unsatisfied demand existing on a large scale: children, deprived for one reason or another, living in what I regard as social monstrosities—high tower blocks of flats that housing committees usually tell other people to live in—others deprived because of inadequate family backgrounds, overcrowded or broken homes, and handicapped children. The demand is enormous. I hope that my hon. Friend will exercise her persuasive powers in the Department and with the Treasury to 1126 make sure that, although we have made a start, the impetus which has been provided does not run into the sands.
In Table 10 of the Plowden Report an estimate was made showing that 745,000 full-time equivalent places would be needed by 1975 and 776,000 by 1979. That is a measure of the challenge facing my hon. Friend and the Department. Knowing my hon. Friend's attitude to this matter, it is with great diffidence that I ask the Department to look at the note of reservation on parental contribution to the cost of nursery education by Professor Ayer and others on page 487 of the Report. That reservation was signed by some people who were regarded as progressive, almost Left-wing; people in education who drew attention to the fact that contributions from parents were expected and were asked for and obtained in countries like Poland, the Soviet Union, France, Denmark, and others. If the choice is between not having any more nursery education at all and seeking to make parental contributions, I hope that the Department will have an open mind on the matter. I ask that the matter should be examined.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will do a useful job in the Department, and that we will soon see some results.
§ 11.49 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor)First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for his good wishes on my appointment. I am pleased that he has made it possible for my initiation at the Dispatch Box to be on the subject of the under-5s, in which he knows I have a special interest. Listening to his speech, I do not think that I could have put it better.
I do not want to spend too long on the importance of nursery education. It is obvious, as was brought out in my hon. Friend's speech, that children in this country start full-time schooling at five years of age, which is a year earlier that in most other countries. But for most children this is still their first impact into full-time schooling, because they have had no pre-school or part-time school experience. It is clear from the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, 1127 with which we are all familiar, that preschool experience at either nursery school or play group is of great value to any child before starting full-time schooling.
This is why Lady Plowden's Committee recommended that there should be a large expansion of nursery education, beginning at once in the educational priority areas, and I agree with the points added to this by my hon. Friend about the impact and the establishment of the high blocks of flats which are usually inadequate in play space. The position today in relation to traffic and play space for children out of doors makes the whole question of nursery education and the provision of proper play facilities for children a very important one indeed.
Before I go into the steps that we are taking to meet the recommendations of the Plowden Report I want to give a brief account of the present pattern of nursery education in England and Wales. I have not time to deal with Scotland, but that is in any case the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In answer to a Question on Thursday my right hon. Friend gave some figures for 1968. In January, 1969, there were about 600 nursery schools in England and Wales, 500 of them maintained by local authorities, whose expenditure on them has risen from £3 million in 1963–64 to £4 million last year. The rest are direct grant or independent schools.
These 600 schools contained about 35,000 pupils, nearly half of them attending part-time. In addition, about 70,000 children under 5 were in nursery classes attached to primary schools—10,000 more than in 1967. In all, nursery provision is available for about 6 per cent. of our 3- and 4-year olds. On top of this there are 150,000 rising 5s in the primary schools, that is children admitted to primary schools at the beginning of the term in which they become 5.
The distribution of these nursery places, though haphazard and largely unplanned as a result of wartime provision, from which we have really been carrying on, to some extent already reflects the social needs of some of the areas. In a number of industrial cities in the North and the Midlands provision in maintained nursery schools and classes was made for about 20 per cent. or more 1128 of the 3- and 4-year olds as long ago as 1965. In one or two places it actually exceeds 30 per cent. In the counties, naturally, there are fewer places, but London, the West Riding, Durham, Staffordshire and Lancashire, with their concentrations of industry and poor living conditions, were to be found among the top 10 in 1965.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that in some places the admission of children to nursery schools and classes is not always related to social need, and this is important. It must be for local authorities and head teachers to decide which children should have places when the demand exceeds the supply, but inquiries show that in most areas priority is given to children with difficult home backgrounds of one sort or another.
Let me turn to the steps that we are taking, as part of the urban programme, to implement the Plowden recommendations about the expansion of nursery education in deprived areas. In answer to a Question on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that 10,000 additional nursery places in deprived areas had been included in the first two phases of the urban programme this year, at a cost of nearly £3 million. When allowance is made for part-time attendance, considerably more than 10,000 children will benefit from these places. More than 400 new nursery classes will be provided in areas of severe social deprivation, by about 70 local education authorities. Because of the special importance of this provision, the Government are paying a 75 per cent. grant towards the expenditure of local authorities on this and other provision under the urban programme.
And this is only the beginning. In all, we shall spend £20 million to £25 million on the urban programme in the first four years alone, and, despite other claims, including those highlighted in the recent report of the Select Committee on Race Relations, a substantial part of the remaining resources will go to nursery education in the deprived areas. To this end the Department is supporting a number of research projects designed to evaluate new approaches to the teaching of the under-5s.
Let me now turn to the important provision for under-5s made outside the 1129 public sector. It has been estimated that as long ago as 1965 there were between 3,000 and 4,000 independent nurseries and play groups registered with local health authorities. The number has certainly grown rapidly since then, and I pay my tribute to the thousands of voluntary workers throughout the country who have made this possible. My Department has recognised the valuable advisory work done by the Save the Children Fund and the National Association of Pre-School Play Groups by renewing and increasing the grants that it makes to their headquarters—a point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) in a supplementary question last Thursday—and more staff for play-groups are being trained in colleges of further education.
The hon. Member also asked me whether we would encourage or empower local authorities to appoint play group advisors. The Plowden Committee recommend that local authorities should be encouraged to give financial or other assistance to nursery groups which fill a need which they themselves cannot meet. As I told the hon. Member on Thursday, the statutory responsibility for pre-school play groups rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and local health authorities. The Government are considering the recommendation in the Seebohm Report that at local authority level they should fall within the responsibilities of the pro-nosed social service Departments.
Meanwhile, I can tell the House that, as part of the second phase of the urban programme, the Government have approved for grant expenditure of about £150,000 by local authorities who are helping pre-school play groups in deprived areas. Here again, further progress will be made in later phases of the urban programme.
It is fair to describe the progress that is being made under the urban programme, both in the public and in the private sector, as the first major breakthrough in the provision of nursery schools and classes since the war. Because re- 1130 sources are limited we must concentrate them on the areas where the needs are greatest. How far and how quickly can we go ahead and expand nursery education in other areas where, at present, additional nursery classes can be provided only if this will enable married women with young children to return to teaching? This depends, like everything else, on the progress of the economy and on a choice between the many urgent demands on the resources available for education as a whole.
I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend that married women returning to work make a substantial contribution to the economy, but I would also stress that the nursery school, as such, is not designed to enable married women to return to work. It is the day nursery that caters for women who wish to do more than part-time work.
On the question of increasing resources by charging fees—which the minority Report attached to Plowden mentioned—this would require legislation, which cannot be discussed in this debate, but in the 1944 Act it was laid down that pre-school nursery education should be regarded as a free educational right, as all other forms of education, within the statutory school years. I see no reason, at the moment, to change this in any way.
We are approaching the raising of the school-leaving age and a tremendous increase in the demand for higher education, which means that we will have to look very closely at the available resources. But the Government will see that the young children at the other end of the age range, and their parents, get a fair share. We will build on the progress already made. The under-5s have for far too long been the under-privileged in terms of education and other facilities, but they have now firmly staked their claim to a greater degree of priority in this field.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.