Nursery Education (Hansard, 21 June 1988)

§ 3. Mr. Cummings
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the variability of the level of nursery education provision offered by different local authorities.

§ 4. George Howarth
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what planned programme of expansion of educational provision for children between the ages of three and four years he expects to occur over the next three years.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)
The variations in education provision for the under-fives across the country reflect differences in local authorities' needs and priorities. The Government's current expenditure plans provide for the number of three and four-year-olds in nursery and primary schools to increase in line with the projected increase in their age cohorts up to 1992.

§ Mr. Cummings
Will the Minister reflect on the statement by the Prime Minister, who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1972, called for nursery provision for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds within 10 years? Has the Minister changed his mind? Does he intend to make the necessary resources available to meet this pressing need?

§ Mr. Dunn
Since 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery or primary schools nationally has increased from 37 to 44 per cent. The proportion of four-year-olds in such schools now exceeds 75 per cent. compared with 55 per cent. in 1979. The proportion would be much higher if rising-fives were included.

§ Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
I welcome the improvement, but does my hon. Friend agree that there are many areas where the playgroup movement makes an important contribution and that many people welcome the variation in provision and would by no means agree that universal nursery school provision is the right approach?

§ Mr. Dunn
My hon. Friend is right. The Government regard the playgroup movement as an important form of provision for under-fives and we always encourage it.

§ Mr. Flannery
Is there not a great and deliberate gap in the answers that the Minister is giving about nursery education? Throughout the country, and especially in the south, Tory authorities have practically no nursery education, because they want to keep the rates down. Last week members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts were in Dorset, which has virtually no nursery education, and where they have preschool playgroups which are cheaper in every way. Is it not apparent that Tory authorities are trying to educate ordinary children on the cheap, and that only in Labour areas do ordinary children go to nursery school?

§ Mr. Dunn
The hon. Gentleman goes too far. The Opposition have plenty of ideas for spending other people's money, but not one sensible idea about how to create wealth. It is clear to me that nursery education for all would be very expensive and, furthermore, would not be appropriate for all children. How do the Opposition propose to pay for nursery education for all?

§ Mr. Thornton
Does my hon. Friend accept that variation in the provision of nursery education is to be welcomed and that the content of the curriculum is more important than the definitive form of the provision? Does he accept, however, that there are considerable misgivings about the number of four-year-olds who are being taught in primary schools and for whom the timetable and curriculum are wholly inappropriate to their years'' Will he consider that point?

§ Mr. Dunn
The admission of under-fives to reception classes is at the discretion of local education authorities. It is important that the provision for those pupils should be appropriately and adequately resourced. The Government are aware that the presence of significant numbers of four-year-olds can give rise to problems in some areas and, through the agency of Her Majesty's inspectors, we are closely monitoring the situation.

§ Mrs. Clwyd
Surely the Minister is not disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who favours—or favoured—nursery education for all. The Minister spoke about costs. In the past 10 years, however, total public spending on child care services, including local authority nurseries, has hardly increased, despite the increase in the numbers of women going out to work and the increasing demands for provision reflected in survey after survey. Surely the truth is that the Government have no targets, no standards and no concern for the needs of the under-fives. The Minister apparently has no comment to make about the vastly differing provision available in the LEAs. What does he have to say about Labour Hounslow which provides 64 per cent. of its children with nursery education, and about Gloucestershire, which provides no nursery education?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to be brief and to ask a question?

§ Mrs. Clwyd
It is a simple question. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs of the under-fives?

§ Mr. Dunn
I remind the hon. Lady that the Government plan to provide for an increase of about 5 per cent. between now and 1992 in expenditure for the education of the under-fives. That is on top of a 25 per cent. increase in expenditure over the past five years.

§ Mr. Rathbone
I reject the Opposition's criticisms, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is increasing awareness of the importance of pre-school education for children, not least so that they can take advantage of the improved teaching standards that the Government are bringing about in primary and secondary education? Will the Government therefore plan for an extension of nursery education for all children?

§ Mr. Dunn
The Government have always accepted that some pre-school experience is beneficial for the under-fives, both at the time and later, but this sector must compete with others for the resources that are available. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.