Nursery Education (Hansard, 6 May 1986)

§ 5. Mr. Soley
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on the availability of nursery education.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)
No such representations have been received.

§ Mr. Soley
How does the hon. Gentleman expect the United Kingdom to keep up with its industrial competitors if we perform so badly in nursery education? Should not such education be given a much higher priority by the Government and by the country generally? Is it not a fact that without that nursery education and some measure of performance by the Government we shall be found wanting in the future?

§ Mr. Dunn
It is for local education authorities to determine the nature and scale of provision offered at that level. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in 1979 428,000 children were in nursery schools and nursery classes. By 1985 that figure had increased by 80,000—almost 20 per cent.

§ Mr. Haselhurst
Before encouraging the commitment of yet greater resources to nursery education, will my hon. Friend consider how the role to be played by the pre-school play group movement might be enhanced by closer cooperation with the junior schools to which the children might proceed?

§ Mr. Dunn
I welcome the growth of the voluntary sector, voluntary organisations and self-help groups. I notice that the Labour party in its recent commitment made no reference to the role of voluntary groups. Its proposals for making nursery school places free on demand to three-year-olds and four-year-olds would cost the United Kingdom more than £400 million in the first year and more than £300 million thereafter. What a cost!

§ Mr. Dobson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the importance that the Government attach to pre-school education is shown by the fact that they changed the law to make it clear that local education authorities were not obliged to provide pre-school education?

§ Mr. Dunn
Local authorities have power, but not a duty, to provide nursery education. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in 1985 43 per cent. of three-year-olds and four-year-olds were in nursery schools or in nursery classes, compared with only 37 per cent. in 1979.

§ Mr. Marlow
Will my hon. Friend tell the pampered actress whom the Labour party put on the television screen yesterday as a decoy for Bernie Grant and Mr. Hatton that there is no such thing as free nursery education, that it must be paid for by the ratepayer and taxpayer, and that 7 many people feel that the mothers of three-year-olds and four-year-olds would be better advised to look after their own children than try to offload them on to the state?

§ Mr. Dunn
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I came to the same conclusion. The lady who appeared last night on the party political broadcast talked about nursery education as a basic right, but she did not want to talk about parental responsibility for bringing up very young children at home.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Will the hon. Gentleman check some of the facts that he has given to the House? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that nursery education is important? Does he agree that since 1979 the Government have been closing nursery schools, that in the past three years there has been virtually no expansion in provision in nursery schools or nursery classes and that, over the next two years, fewer children will enjoy nursery schools and nursery classes than have done in the past? Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, by the year 2000, at the present rate of progress, our provision for three-year-olds and four-year-olds will still be only half that in West Germany, France, Holland, and Italy?

§ Mr. Dunn
The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect. Since 1979, 32 nursery schools have closed. However, the general increases, which I mentioned earlier, are to be welcomed. The Opposition parties make no reference to the role of the voluntary sector, and that is most lamentable.