HC Deb 01 August 1978 vol 955 cc637-48

8.48 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)

I think the House will not require from me reasons for raising a debate on Government policy on nursery education, because the importance of that is universally acknowledged.

I wish to emphasise at the outset that by raising this subject in the House of Commons I do not seek in any way to attempt to detract from the local council responsibility for education, in which I firmly believe. As I always try to tell my constituents, if people do not like local policies and decisions on education they can and should seek remedies locally. Neverthless, the Government, alas, hold the greater part of the purse, and with an increasingly mobile population in a relatively small island it is accepted that the Government should lay down broad guidelines.

Therefore, I seek to obtain from the Under-Secretary of State some idea of the present state of Government policy on nursery education, bearing in mind that the restraints on public expenditure have pushed into the far distance, I am afraid, the oft-repeated aim of the Government to provide nursery education for all children whose parents want it and for, as the Plowden report put it, 90 per cent. of four-year-olds. I hope that we shall hear something of the Government's time scale in respect of that aim, including their medium-term aims on the way to that eventual objective.

There is some confusion and doubt about the role of the various important elements in looking after pre-school education. For instance, I hope that the Under-Secretary will fully confirm that the role of the pre-school playgroup movement that is now sustaining such a large part of pre-school education is regarded as permanent and not merely a prop that might eventually be expected to fall away.

In my constituency of Colne Valley, virtually the whole burden of pre-school education, apart from one or two splendid exceptions by way of nursery classes, is borne by the largely voluntary pre-school playgroup movement. It is important that it should have some long-term assurances on how it will be assisted to meet the appalling difficulty of rising costs and to meet the danger that rising costs will prove a barrier to less fortunate parents who may be unable to send their children to pre-school playgroups in the absence of formal nursery education. If the preschool groups are to continue to be very well organised and well staffed, it is important that their role should be fully established and confirmed.

That brings me, as the hon. Lady will have expected, to a plea for some further resolution of the almost intolerable division of responsibility in these spheres between the Department of Education and Science, which looks after nursery education, and the Department of Health and Social Security, having overall care of playgroups and other such organisations.

The division may have been understandable as a temporary arrangement when public expenditure was on a different footing, but if we are now to look forward to a long-term continuation of the two major forms of help for the under-fives it is important that the Government should address themselves to achieving a single channel of responsibility, especially at the local level. The dichotomy between the two Departments nationally is reflected, unfortunately, at local level in a similar split of responsibility.

I place on record my view that it is not sufficient to try to overcome the split between different local government departments by having joint advisory committees of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security. There should be joint executive committees for the work, as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils have urged.

I turn to the third of the four aspects that I wish to draw to the attention of the House—namely, the appalling difficulty at present for those who feel that they have some responsibility for checking on the coverage of provision for the under-fives and the great difficulty for parents in planning their lives and deciding where to live when they cannot be sure what the provision for the under-fives is, or is likely to be, in a particular area. This monitoring of the provision made and planned becomes extremely difficult, even for hon. Members with all the admirable help of the Library, as long as the responsibility is divided.

For instance, I know that the two metropolitan boroughs of Kirklees and Oldham, of which my constituency forms part, made no bids for Government money for capital spending on nursery education last year. That is established. I know that, as regards the number of nursery education places available, they are neither near the top nor at the bottom of the league. I know that neither Kirk-lees nor Oldham comes anywhere near the distinguished records of towns such as Bradford and Bolton. But when it comes to establishing what total provision there is for getting the rising fives into primary school, providing nursery classes and pre-school playgroups and other assistance, there is great difficulty in making a satisfactory assessment of the position. That is partly the result of this divided ministerial responsibility

I should like to quote from an interesting letter in The Times Educational Supplement of 28th July this year. Jessie Vaughan, writing from Leeds, says: it is deplorable that there are still many areas which are poorly provided for, while in others there are day nurseries, nursery classes, nursery school and playgroups almost within a stone's throw of each other". She goes on later to say: Where more children are being absorbed into nursery schools and classes the tendency is for some play groups to be phased out without any proper review of local situations; or attention given to wishes of parents themselves". Although Jessie Vaughan does not go on to make the diagnosis, I suspect that some of the points that she makes derive partly from this split of responsibility.

Finally, under the heading of Government policy, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister some indication of how the Government believe that the expected decline in the primary school population will affect the provision of nursery education. Might it mean—it would be a great boon—a probable increase in the number of nursery classes actually held within primary school campuses or premises? That arrangement works very well in parts of Huddersfield. It is, of course, an immense boon to hard-pressed primary school teachers who find children coming to them from pre-school education very much easier to integrate into school life than children who have not had what I believe every child should have—namely, some pre-school education.

8.58 a.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I am very glad to have the opportunity, even at this time of the day, to speak on what I regard as the most vital of all the educational spheres.

I believe that Socialist Governments over the years have made two cardinal errors which have vitally affected and, indeed, virtually crippled nursery education. They were not intended to do so, but one indirectly and the other directly are doing so. The first error was the decision of the pre-1970 Socialist Government to raise the school-leaving age instead of spending the money on existing schools or on extending nursery education.

Unlike Labour Members, I believe that educational deprivation begins not at 11 but at four or under. Although this affects all under-fives, it applies especially to children—particularly only children—in remote rural areas and to children from deprived homes, the latter of whom never see a newspaper, let alone a book, before they come to school and who, when they get to school, can barely string a sentence together. These children desperately need help before the statutory age of five, by which time they are obliged to try to keep up with children from more fortunate backgrounds.

It is true that research, especially in the United States, tends to show that the advantage of "early starters" has largely disappeared by the age of seven or eight, but without this earlier start they would scarcely have been in the race at all.

I have visited the schools in my constituency regularly, week after week, for the past 10 years, so I know them all intimately. When I go to a school, I often ask the children in the reception class how many of them have been to a preschool playgroup or to a nursery class. A few hands are raised and a split second later more hands rise. The teacher smiles because the juniors are keeping up with the Joneses. They have not had preschool education, but when the other children put up their hands they do not like to feel that they have been left out—and they should not be left out. Although research in America shows that children lose their early advantage, at least they have not lost it before they have begun.

The second cardinal error was the savage policy contained in circular 14/76, in which Government made clear that Nursery education building programmes will be reduced. Even worse, the circular made clear that children below the statutory school age should not be admitted to school unless the expenditure was minimal or, as the circular put it, the extra call on resources is insignificant. This meant that local education authorities, such as my own, with a large number of small rural schools with the physical space to admit children, were obliged to confine pre-school admissions to the rising fives and were prevented from admitting the children they dearly wanted to admit, and who wanted to come, because it would have cost between £300,000 and £360,000 to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at the proper level.

When I took up this matter with the education authority, I was assured that the education committee would reconsider the admissions policy immediately financial resources became available, and I am happy to say that, by economy in other areas, the authority has managed to revert to two admissions a year. It is essential for the Government to cease discouraging the admission of under-fives and to encourage local education authorities to extend this vital nursery edcaation.

I believe that the ideal form of nursery education is not nursery schools but nursery classes attached to existing primary schools, not only because they cost half as much per place but because they prevent a break in the child's education. It is so much easier for a child to go to a school where its brothers and sisters may already be and to move in a smooth flow into the next classes than to have to start in a separate school and have to move on. That is one break too many in the educational pattern.

I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done in my area, as in so many others, by the pre-school playgroups. They work prodigiously to try to fill the ever-widening gap caused by Government policy, which leads to the unfortunate lack of nursery education in an area such as my own. They should receive every possible help. I beg the Minister to consider seriously this tre- mendously difficult problem and to see that the Government put resources where they are most desperately needed—at the younger end of the educational age group.

9.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I shall respond to the debate.

I am grateful, like the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), to have the chance to say a few things about this subject, which, like both hon. Members, I consider to be of great importance in education.

However, I must say to the hon. Lady that I found some of her remarks more than a little surprising. I am relying on my memory, but it is my recollection, to take the first of her points about how she feels that nursery education has been crippled, that, although the school-leaving age may have been proposed to be raised during the period of office of a Labour Secretary of State, it was actually raised by her right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the Opposition—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

It had gone too far.

Miss Jackson

—when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am not impressed by the hon. Lady's argument that it had gone too far. Nevertheless, it was actually done by that right hon. Lady. Therefore, if it crippled nursery education—with which I am not sure that I would entirely agree—it was certainly not as part of a Socialist policy. I think that the hon. Lady would accept that.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

It certainly was.

Miss Jackson

Well, all right. If the hon. Lady wishes to argue that her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was carrying out Socialist policies when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, that is entirely up to her. But I think that she would find that her right hon. Friend would not entirely agree with her.

I am also a little surprised by the second argument that we have also crippled nursery education by having cut back on the building programme and by approach to the admission of rising fives. I accept the hon. Lady's contention that it was most undesirable to have to cut back on the nursery education building programme. That is something that I very much regret. I hope that it will not happen in the future. But I must tell the hon. Lady that it seems to me that the strongest possibility of that happening again will be the return of a Government whom she is likely to support, who would be committed to a very substantial reduction of public expenditure, even from the levels that obtain today. The hon. Lady's colleagues have not put forward the argument that this will not happen in education.

However, perhaps we can turn to what is actually happening in the field. I entirely accept the contention of both hon. Members who have spoken that all children can benefit quite substantially from association with other children and from the ability to participate in the development of language and manual control and of all the other things which are of assistance to children and which are provided through nursery education. I equally accept the hon. Member's contention that this is not only desirable but essential for children who come to nursery school or any other educational programme when already at a disadvantage. This is why we have sought throughout our nursery education programme, even at times of difficulty, to give priority to children who are disadvantaged.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me to make clear what our targets still are and what is our aim. Our aim is still to meet, ultimately, the Plowden target of making nursery education available for children aged three and four, whose parents want them to have it. I put it in that way because it is only the Plowden committee that has attempted to define what it thinks the demand is and what it thinks is the level of nursery education which will satisfy parental demand. Obviously this is an estimate. We have seen no better estimate since Plowden. Therefore, we continue to accept that the Plowden target of nursery education for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds, but mostly on a part-time basis, would be needed to satisfy demand.

We are still some way from that target, obviously. In January 1977, which is the latest year for which complete figures are available, about 35 per cent. of the three-year-old and four-year-old age groups were getting nursery education, either in nursery schools or in nursery classes attached to primary schools or reception classes in infant schools. Our present plans provide for the percentage of the three-year old and four-year-old age group receiving such education to rise to almost 50 per cent. by 1982.

I think that we would all wish to see faster progress if this were possible. Certainly I hope that it will be possible. We must, however, recognise that since 1974 we have made quite substantial progress. More than £50 million has been made available in building programmes, and the number of children in nursery education has increased by nearly two-thirds. Therefore, at the date to which I am referring—January 1977–210,000 children were attending nursery schools and classes in England and Wales in addition to the 268,000 children under five in reception classes at infant schools. There has been real progress since we took office, even though one would have wished it to be faster.

The hon. Member for Lancaster asked about the admission of rising fives. There was a difficulty some time ago when we suggested in the rate support grant circular to local authorities that they should look carefully at this policy. That obtained for only a year, and the Government do not now seek to discourage authorities from admitting rising fives.

As the hon. Lady has requested, we are encouraging authorities once again to look at the possibility of admitting such children, and we hope that they will be able to do so under the provisions we have made available through the rate support grant. It is very much a matter for the authorities whether they choose and whether they feel able to make this provision available.

During the period to which the hon. Lady referred, we also said in that circular that we believed that enough money was available for all authorities to open and run new nursery schools that were about to come on stream. Exercising their free choice as they are able to do under the powers given by Parliament, many local authorities chose, however, not to open such nursery schools or to run such programmes. That makes the point clearly that this is still very much a matter of local choice.

This leads to large variations among authorities in the provision that is made. For example, Manchester is the best authority in the country in this respect. It has little over half of its three- and four-year-olds in nursery education. Some authorities, unfortunately, such as Gloucestershire, have none. That county closed its only nursery school in 1976. The hon. Lady said that Socialist Governments were crippling nursery education, but I must tell her frankly that the list of nursery provision by local authorities, which is available, will show her that all the authorities which do very little in this area are controlled by her party and not by mine.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

On the question of trying to assess the performance of local authorities, is the Under-Secretary able to give an overall figure for Manchester, Gloucestershire or any other significant authority, not only for nursery education, for which the education committee is responsible, but for the total number of children who are getting preschool education or playgroup provision?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Will the hon. Lady—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is disorderly to have two interventions before a reply.

Miss Jackson

I will give way to the hon. Lady, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Will the Minister take on board the point that unfortunately, because of the method of assessing rate support grant, particularly the needs element, the amount available for the counties has been savagely slashed while that for the urban areas has been increased? Is she aware that that makes the task of county authorities infinitely more difficult in this respect, as in other ways, than that of the conurbations?

Miss Jackson

To take the hon. Gentleman's point first, I do not have figures for the cases he is querying. A year or so ago I was interested in the provision of pre-school playgroups and whether, as the argument had been put to me, the authorities were using this sort of provision for not providing nursery education and were therefore not meeting the full need for nursery education as such in their areas. Our researches at that time showed that on the whole the picture was the same for both kinds of provision, that in the authorities where there was good provision of nursery education, classes and so on there was also much encouragement for pre-school playgroups but that equally, in authorities where there was little provision, the lack of provision applied right across the board and there was little encouragement either for voluntary groups. That was the pattern about 18 months ago, and as far as I am aware it has not changed since.

On the rate support grant, I accept the hon. Lady's argument that in the last couple of years the counties have complained strongly about the way in which the rate support grant has been allocated to them. I must point out to her that it is over a much longer period that nursery education has been provided and, therefore, this cannot account for the deficiencies in some authorities. As she will probably be aware—and as she will, I am sure, regret as much as I do—it is not merely a matter of financial difficulties. There are some local authorities which also show a complete lack of will to provide nursery education.

Apart from the example of Gloucestershire, there is another county, of which the hon. Lady may be aware, where the chairman of the education committee refers contemptuously to nursery education as baby-minding on the rates. I am sure that the hon. Lady deplores that attitude as much as I do, but where it exists it is not surprising that nursery education has not been provided. To blame any Government or its rate support grant for such a position is a little dishonest in the case of some of these counties.

The provision of nursery education is proceeding at a steady pace but, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley quite rightly says, this is only part of the way in which services for the under fives can be provided. I entirely take his point that there is a good deal of concern that there should be split responsibility for the services and concern that this will lead to some deficiencies as well as leading to the fact that it is more difficult to assess exactly what is being provided.

I must say to the hon. Member, however, that, particularly in the last few months and in the last year, the most strenuous efforts have been made between my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security to bring together responsibility for provision and to seek, too, to see that there is not this drifting apart which perhaps people have seemed to identify in the past. For example, as I think the hon. Gentleman will know, a joint circular has been issued this year dealing with the care and the education aspects of services for under-fives and seeking to make the point that there is room for both, and that there is a great need for both to work together and to be provided together. It quoted practical examples of joint provision which is going on in local authorities.

There is close day-to-day working at official level between the Departments and there are regular meetings between the Ministers and the permanent secretaries to discuss these matters. In the joint circular, as well as giving practical examples of what is being done under this framework we have urged local authorities to co-ordinate all their services, both statutory and voluntary, to make the maximum use of resources and to set up joint committees, which will, indeed, lead to executive decisions rather than merely to the giving of advice.

In this context we have particularly emphasised the valuable role that voluntary groups, such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association, play We have certainly tried to emphasise that there is need for the sort of help that they give as well as for nursery education, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. They provide perhaps some slightly different contribution in their different ways, and there is room for—and, indeed, a need for—both. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that point.

One further development of which the hon. Gentleman will wish to know is that on the joint interdepartmental consultative committee on the under-fives there have recently been discussions with the representatives of local authority associations. It is intended to have a joint meeting with representatives of the associations and of voluntary bodies such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association towards the end of this year to try to take further steps along this road of co-operation.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the declining school population. This is one of the many areas where we feel that this is an advantage, as well as creating some difficulties. We have done our best to encourage local authorities to make more radical and full use of space that is becoming available in their schools, and we have quite specifically encouraged them to look at the use of classrooms, for nursery education, for nursery classes, for playgroups or for whatever seems right in the locality and in that area to extend the range of services that is available.

We have encouraged them to do this partly as a means, as the hon. Lady suggested, of extending the provisions for under-fives, and also because it is part of our general approach of wishing to encourage the community use of schools for all groups within the community as a whole.

I hope that I have conveyed to the House, and to the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman, that we share their aims of a wider and better provision of services for the under-fives and that we hope to make further progress in this direction.