HC Deb 18 February 1994 vol 237 cc1224-34

Order for Second Reading read.

1.45 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

As the long title says, the Bill would Require local authorities to have regard to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery education as in section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944. Some hon. Members may wonder what the Bill is for if that provision is included in the 1944 Act. The reason is that, possibly by accident, that section is no longer in the Act. The purpose of the Bill is simply to reinsert that provision into statute.

I hope that, as was the case with the Chiropractors Bill, this Bill will meet with universal approval. I have yet to hear of an hon. Member who disapproves of it; indeed, I have yet to hear of anyone in the country who disapproves of it. I hope, therefore, that it will receive a passage through Parliament as agreeable as that given to the Chiropractors Bill.

The Bill, I point out to the Minister, is entirely compatible with everything that has been said by the Secretary of State for Education and with everything that has been said and written, almost weekly, by the Prime Minister. Without such a provision, how can one sensibly go forward to expand any form of under-five provision in any local authority? How can we go forward without considering the needs and without seeing how the available resources can best be distributed? I realise, of course, that the resources are by no means unlimited. I shall not go into the matter today, but I hope that we shall have further discussion about what the resources should be.

The number one point is the assessment of need. Nursery education is favoured by all parents, whether they wish to use the facilities or not. Nobody, as far as I am aware, opposes such provision. Nursery education is a basic need in the community and, if I may say so, "society". I am sure, therefore, that nobody here will do anything to prevent the Bill from being given a Second Reading this afternoon. If anyone does, I shall have to ask why.

Why are people so keen on nursery education? I have here a formulation, which is not well known but cannot be bettered. It states: It is now considered that the self-contained nursery school, which forms a transition from home to school, is the most suitable type of provision for children under 5. Such schools are needed in all districts, as even when children come from good homes they can derive much benefit, both educational and physical, from attendance at a nursery school. Moreover, they are of great value to mothers who go out to work, and also to those who need relief from the burden of household duties combined with the care of a young family … There is no doubt of the importance of training children in good habits at the most impressionable age and of the indirect value of the nursery school in influencing the parents of the children. There is equally no doubt of the incalculable value of the schools in securing medical and nursing care, and the remedial treatment of defects which may be difficult to eradicate if they are left untreated until the child enters school in the ordinary way at the age of 5. From what we know of all that has been written on the subject, we can all agree that that is a pretty good summing up of the universal approval of nursery education. I was quoting from Command 6458 of July 1943, the great Butler and Ede White Paper which preceded the Education Act 1944. In these modern times, it is worth noting that it consisted of 36 pages of A5 and cost 6d, which is rather less than 3p. It was good value for money.

Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)

I have read many of the reports issued by the Office for Standards in Education and I have noticed that they comment specifically on what proportion of children have access to proper pre-school provision. Clearly, my hon. Friend's quotation from the past is matched by the present concern of a Government organisation.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful to my hon Friend for underlining the universal agreement about the need for nursery education.

My next quotation is taken from the Hansard report of the House of Commons, meeting in another place, on 19 January 1944, 50 years ago last month. In moving the Second Reading of the then Education Bill, none other than R. A. Butler said: the country seems to have a special bent for nursery schools. These are not only social centres of training and up-bringing for the children, but have a real educational value and are often centres of adult education for the parents themselves. Therefore, I hope that we shall see, arising from this Bill, a healthy development of nursery schools, and/or classes where they are more expedient, and that we shall find that they buttress and support home life and make no attempt at supplanting it"—[Official Report, 19 January 1944; Vol. 130, c. 212.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said, almost every report since then has emphasised the need for nursery education, for example, the Plowden report and Lady Thatcher's White Paper, which was scuppered by the energy crisis—we had to do something about that crisis, I suppose.

More recently, an independent commission on education said in its report last year: High-quality publicly-funded education provision should be available for all 3-and-4 year-olds. I shall not go into the details of general provision for the under-fives but everyone agrees that nursery school has an important part to play.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 90 per cent. of three and four-year-old children in England currently attend some form of pre-school education?

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Lady is right, but I do not want to go too far down that road because it is outside the scope of the Bill. There is discussion in all quarters—educational as well as Government quarters, for all I know—about the benefits of different forms of pre-school education. Nursery education as such is defined by qualifications of teachers, the number of available rooms, the facilities in a nursery school, the ratio of teachers qualified in the subject and the amount of nursery assistance. It was understood in the 1944 Bill and has been ever since. Although the hon. Lady's statistics are right, I do not want to get drawn into the overall proportions, because the Bill in 1944 and the Bill before us are about nursery education, which nobody denies is necessary and helpful.

Lady Olga Maitland

rose—

Mr. Spearing

I hesitate to give way again to the hon. Lady, but I shall for the last time on that particular point if she wishes.

Lady Olga Maitland

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. Further to the principle of nursery education, does he accept that the needs of tiny three or four-year-old children are diverse? Surely it must be appropriate that parents have the choice of appropriate pre-school education for their child. Formal nursery education is not always appropriate for every child.

Mr. Spearing

I am not sure that I claimed that it was. I do not think that anybody, even the most enthusiastic supporter of what the hon. Lady tends to deem as over-rigid education—although it is not in my experience—would make it compulsory through a local education authority. The decision is open to parents. As the hon. Lady knows full well because of the statistics, many more parents wish their children to go to such nursery schools, but for one reason or another they are not able to send them. That is a fact that she would not deny.

I shall return to the Bill. The Education Act 1944 did not require local education authorities to make nursery education compulsory. It is important that the terms of nursery provision, as contained in section 8(2) of the 1944 Act, are on the record. As enacted, it read: In fulfilling their duties under this section, a local education authority shall, in particular, have regard— (a) to the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided in separate schools;"— there were some all-age schools at that time (b) to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery schools or, where the authority considers the provision of such schools to be inexpedient, by the provision of nursery classes in other schools". Perhaps by accident or an oversight, due to some disagreements about funding in 1980—I happened to be in the Chamber when the discussion took place—the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mark Carlisle, now Lord Carlisle, introduced a new clause which allowed local education authorities to spend money on nursery education. There had been an argument over whether sections 8(2) (a) and (2) (b) allowed them to spend money. Many hon. Members said they did not.

In giving the local authorities that power to spend money on nursery education, I think that, by an oversight, section 8(2)(b) was repealed, and the need for securing that provision does not exist any more. I do not think that we need to go too deeply into the reasons for that; it would take a long time to detect what went on. I was in the Chamber at the time and have read the debate in Hansard and I do not think that any indication was given that, by accepting the new power to spend money and making it specific, the House repealed the section which I want to reinstate.

So what should be done? As I have said, I do not want to delay the House much longer, but I see no reason why anybody should wish to oppose what was in the 1944 Act. If we are to have nursery education as part of the under-fives provision and as part of a mix, whatever that mix may be, however the resources are used and however it is funded—there are disagreements about that, so I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) with me in all that I am saying—it is right and proper that there should be a duty on a local education authority to provide such comprehensive provision and choice for parents. Such a provision should be on the statute book and at the moment it is not.

The section was in force from 1944 until 1980. It was important because it focused on the local community, local society and local need. The White Paper which I quoted and the Bill that followed it were the result of the enormous nationwide consensus that existed, not only among political parties but among the Churches, educationists and teacher organisations. In those formative years, everyone made their suggestions and they were broadly incorporated in the epoch-making 1944 Act by R. A. Butler.

The Education Act 1944 was passed 50 years ago last month. It was unopposed on Second Reading and on Third Reading. The provision on nursery education was never questioned. It was passed by a House that contained a majority of 250 notional Conservative Members—there was a national Government. That makes the subject even more important because the consensus existed 50 years ago, as I hope it does today, among hon. Members who were elected in 1935. Those people thought that the legislation was right then, and there was no discussion about it, except for legal reasons, for about 30 years, so who can oppose it today?

2 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now rather than later in the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for missing his first few sentences. He is a near neighbour of mine and we have had occasion to do battle together in the past. I pay tribute to his persistence on this issue and others and I congratulate him on his fortune in drawing this slot in the annual ballot.

There is no difference between much of what the hon. Member for Newham, South said and what the Government say about the importance of nursery education. If time allows, I shall go into greater detail about the provision of nursery education by local authorities of different persuasions. Let there be no disagreement between us that for many children nursery education represents an important start to their full education, which they enter from the age of five.

It might, however, be of use to the House if I concentrate immediately on the legal impact of the Bill. It would restore a provision, section 8(2)(b), which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, was originally part of the Education Act 1944 and was amended in 1980. The section should be understood in the context of the statutory duties that the legislation imposed on local education authorities.

I shall paraphrase a little to save some time. Section 8(1) of the 1944 Act states: It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools— (a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and (b) for providing secondary education". Section 8(2)(b), to which the Bill refers, mentions: the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery schools or, where the authority consider the provision of such schools to be inexpedient, by the provision of nursery classes in other schools". According to the original form of words used in the 1944 Act, the local education authority was required to have regard … to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years". It does not state that local education authorities must make provision; it merely states that authorities should take such needs into consideration.

That was an imprecise duty and was impossible to enforce. That was the view taken not long after the 1944 Act came into force. Over the years, the view that provision for nursery education was a discretionary power for local authorities became quite widely held, and they took that view themselves. More importantly, everyone acted as though that were the case.

Mr. Spearing

I do not think that I disagree with anything said by the Minister, but even if the authorities did not have the power, they had the duty to have regard and they had a legal duty to undertake some sort of assessment. That is what my Bill, if passed, would do, and that may sit well with current legislation.

Mr. Squire

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall seek to respond to that precise point and the impact of his Bill.

Section 8(2)(b) no longer exists. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, it was repealed by the Education Act 1980. The reason for that move was quite clear—

Mr. Spearing

Not to the House.

Mr. Squire

Well-when introducing the amendment that effected the move, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mark Carlisle, said: I do not believe that it is wise to leave the law unclear on this matter. It is necessary to make it clear, and in the amendments I am attempting to bring the law into line with what it was always thought to be."—[Official Report, 12 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 1279.] Section 8(2)(b) was repealed by section 38(6) and schedule 7 of the Education Act 1980. Section 24(1) and (2) made new statutory provisions for under-fives. It stated:

  1. "(1) A local education authority shall have the power to establish nursery schools, to maintain such schools established by them or a former authority and to assist any such school which is not so established.
  2. (2) A local education authority shall not by virtue of section 8(1)(a) of the Education Act 1944 be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years but this subsection shall not affect the power of an authority under section 9(1) of that Act to establish, maintain or assist a school at which education is provided both for such pupils and older pupils, including a school at which there is a nursery class for such junior pupils as aforesaid."

It is important to quote those lines as the 1980 Act is the trigger for the hon. Gentleman's Bill.

The form of words covering local education authorities' responsibilities for under-fives is no longer ambiguous. The practical effect of the original section of the 1944 Act and section 24 of the 1980 Act is exactly the same. Therefore, if enacted, the hon. Member's Bill would achieve precisely nothing. Worse than that, we would be returning to an imprecise form of words that would flatter to deceive. The Bill is, therefore, unnecessary and adds nothing to the current duties of local authorities.

I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak, not least the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), so I shall curtail some of the comments that I would otherwise have made. However, I must clarify where the Government stand. We have made it clear that we should like to see a widening of nursery and other pre-school provision as resources become available. Our longer-term ambition is availability for all those who want it. Much has already been achieved and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) made passing reference to that a moment ago. Over half of all three and four-year-olds now attend maintained nursery and primary schools, and more than 90 per cent. receive some form of pre-school provision.

We intend to explore ways of adding still further, as resources allow, to the choice that parents have among the range of provision—public, private and voluntary. As well as encouraging that choice and diversity in response to children's needs and parents' preferences and circumstances, the Government will continue to promote quality and cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Spearing

It would be helpful to take up the Minister's point. He claims that the Bill will do nothing. Of course, section 24 of the Education Act 1980, which provides specific power in this area, is fuzzy. Does he agree that if the Bill is enacted—I do not see any reason why it should not be—it will provide a duty and an obligation on the local education authority to make the assessment of need even if other people fulfil it? Therefore, it will make a difference because section 24 provides only a power to spend—it does not provide a duty to survey and assess the need of nursery education in respect of all the other points to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) referred.

Mr. Squire

I can only reiterate my earlier words that in practical terms—I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is most concerned about that—and in the form of the words that would be reintroduced, I have been advised that there would be no gain from this proposal and we would have the loss of going back to a less precise form of wording than was introduced by the 1980 Act, to which both the hon. Gentleman and I have made copious references.

I shall continue my comments on Government policy and review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that there are no preconceptions about the results of our current study. In other words, nothing is ruled out and, indeed, nothing is ruled in at the moment. Nor is there a set timetable and, therefore, in fairness I do not expect to produce solutions overnight. However, when we are ready to make an announcement, we shall do so in the normal way and allow the House an appropriate opportunity to debate the issues.

I shall say a few words about other types of provision, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made passing reference earlier. We do not see playgroups as a poor substitute for nursery schools or classes. A playgroup is a distinct form of provision with its own ethos and strengths, geared towards meeting an identifiable parental need. Most playgroups take their educational role seriously and now provide a rich source of experience, preparing children for primary schooling and the national curriculum. We recognise that some playgroups may not come up to scratch but many, if not most, are excellent.

As a means of delivering pre-school education, playgroups have shown that they can achieve results. In recognition of that, the Department has substantially increased its grant for the training activities of the Pre-School Playgroups Association to £887,000 in the current year. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence also make grants to the association.

So that the House may have some idea of the scope of the activities, at the latest date for which I have information, some 770,000 under-fives are in playgroups. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that that is a significant proportion of under-fives. As I said, overwhelmingly they are enjoying a good provision that prepares them for schooling.

I shall say a few words about the role of local education authorities. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South would agree that, whatever our differences on the wording of his Bill, it is right that local education authorities should have a power and not a duty to provide for the needs of under-fives. We believe that a policy of local determination of under-fives services is necessary if we are to ensure that local authorities and other providers are able to respond to the specific needs of their areas. It is better for that to remain a local decision, rather than it becoming a duty imposed by the Government. That is the thinking behind the LEA funding arrangements.

The present arrangement assumes—I know the hon. Member for Newham, South knows this from our discussions when I was wearing another ministerial hat—that the under-five population is one of several client groups and the arrangement distributes formula funding according to the total size of that population in each LEA.

Funding LEAs by reference to the policies of each individual authority on the discretionary provision that they make for under-fives—some hon. Members have urged that in the Chamber and in correspondence with me—would be at odds with the present system, which is based on the concept of the objective calculation of the need to spend to provide a standard level of service. The settlement for 1994–95 allows for local authorities in England to spend £17,087 million on education—an increase of 2.4 per cent. on this year's figure, once changes in function are taken into account. Of course, spending priorities are for each authority to determine.

It is important to put on the record that it is sometimes suggested that the provision of nursery education in this country in some ways lacks in comparison with that of other countries. Those who make that comment rather overlook the fact that no other European country has a longer period of statutory education than the United Kingdom. The 11 years which all our pupils are expected to enjoy, or for which they are expected to be at school, is longer than almost any other country. I am advised that it is equalled only by the Netherlands.

It is important to bear in mind when making any international comparisons that most other countries commence mandatory statutory schooling at the age of six, or seven in a number of cases, whereas our children start their formal education at the age of five.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

Does the Under-Secretary agree that statistics show that, in respect of nursery education for three and four-year-olds, this country comes bottom of the league of European countries with the exception of Portugal?

Mr. Squire

I am suggesting that simple comparisons based only on nursery education and taking no account of the age at which statutory education starts are, frankly and with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, a little facile.

We must look at the range of provision. In one or two of the EC countries which the hon. Gentleman and I would identify as natural competitors, a significant proportion of nursery funding comes via voluntary or private means, and not from the state sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made it clear that more than 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attend either education or group day care. That is an impressive figure against the background of compulsory full-time education from the age of five.

Lady Olga Maitland

My hon. Friend refers to comparisons with nursery education in Europe. Does he agree that European countries do not have statutory obligations for the provision of nursery education? Is not it the case that, in Germany, 71 per cent. of children attend nursery education that is privately funded?

Mr. Squire

My hon. Friend makes more accurately than I did the point that I was making. We all use international comparisons but it is difficult—particularly in this sector—to be sure that we use the same basis.

For the record—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised the issue—apart from the 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds that I have mentioned, the figures break down as follows: 26 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are admitted to maintained nursery schools and classes. I pay tribute to the percentage in Newham, which has arguably one of the highest attendance rates in the country with 64 per cent. Of that 26 per cent., 4 per cent. are in nursery schools and 22 per cent. are in nursery classes; 24 per cent. are admitted to infant classes in maintained primary schools—mainly four-year-olds in reception classes—and 4 per cent. are admitted to special or independent schools. So, including pupils in independent and special schools, the overall school participation rate is 55 per cent.

In addition—I am quoting the 1992 figures—41 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attend playgroups. Some of those may go on to under-five schooling during the year and may also be counted in the above figures. About 5 per cent. receive other group day care. Most playgroups are affiliated to the Pre-School Playgroups Association and cater for some 770,000 children or 21 per cent. of all under-fives. More importantly perhaps in this discussion, such playgroups involve some 250,000 parents in running them. So the playgroups pass on parenting skills. As for four-year-olds, 84 per cent., excluding rising-fives, are admitted to maintained nursery and primary schools. Such schools also admitted some 201,000 rising-fives.

I am conscious that the time is making me hurry more than I should. The figures show that a significant range of options is open to under-fives. That emphasises the improvement that has taken place during the time that the Government have been in office.

Mr. Don Foster

Does the Minister accept that his announcement of all those statistics somewhat belies his opening remarks, in which he said that he fully supported the need for the expansion of nursery education in Britain and that the Government were exploring ways of expanding it, as resources allowed? He said that nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in, that there was no fixed timetable and that he made no promises. Do not his subsequent remarks show that all those opening words were nothing but hollow promises?

Mr. Squire

I shall avoid phrases such as "hollow promises" in connection with the hon. Gentleman's party and try to keep the debate on a level keel. If, having heard what I said, and repeated, the hon. Gentleman comes to that conclusion, I cannot help him. I have made it clear today that we are committed to an expansion of provision, certainly including nursery education. The form and timing of that expansion is still to be determined and will be brought before the House in the usual and proper way. I may say gently to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly possible to support nursery education and still see the advantage of other forms of pre-five provision, which would be lost if we moved to a position in which the only provision available was nursery education funded and provided by the state.

I am conscious that the clock is our worst enemy today. I hope that I have explained why I believe that the Bill is unnecessary and would add nothing to the present requirements under the law. I also hope that I have given good intent as to what the Government will in due course announce over the range of provision for pre-fives.

2.22 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

I was surprised that the Minister rejected the modest proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend made an eloquent case for reintroducing part of the Education Act 1944 to make education authorities at least consider the need for nursery education in their areas. They would have to assess the needs and draw up a plan which might be implemented over a five or 10-year period. In drawing up the plan, local authorities might find that some parents wanted a nursery place for their child but others were happy with playgroup provision. The proposal does not exclude playgroups. One of the purposes of a sensible policy on pre-school education is to introduce quality criteria, which will enable all sectors to be involved in provision.

I imagine that the Minister already knows that the Pre-School Playgroups Association would be happy to have facilities similar to those available in nursery schools and units. The lack of such facilities is one of its major problems when trying to deliver quality education to the children who attend its groups.

The association is also concerned about training. The Minister should not claim responsibility and praise for the additional money for training people involved in the pre-school playgroup movement, when no similar concerted effort has been made to ensure that the same happens in nursery schools and nursery education.

The plain fact is that only two out of the 40 best providers of nursery education are Conservative-controlled authorities—one is Liberal Democrat-controlled and in a few authorities there is no overall control, but 34 are Labour-controlled. None of the 25 worst providers is Labour-controlled. Why? Because Labour authorities accept the commitment for providing for three and four-year-olds implicit in the standard spending assessments, but unfortunately far too many Conservative-controlled authorities do not.

In the debate about nursery schools, units and playgroups we should concentrate on the delivery of a quality service. The best research on the subject was the Ypsilanti project at the Perry school in Michigan. For 27 years, it studied the lives of 130 people, comparing those who had received a good-quality nursery education with those who had not. That study shows that every dollar invested in good-quality nursery education has saved the taxpayer seven dollars during that 27-year period, because the people who experienced such education were far less likely to become involved in crime, more likely to get good qualifications, had fewer special education problems in school and got better-paid jobs and paid more taxes in later life. That is why the Government should be committed to such a programme.

Mr. Robin Squire

If the demands of time had not been what they are I would have mentioned research. I do not expect the hon. Member to accept this from the Dispatch Box, but I assure him that conclusive research on the subject is very elusive. We shall return to it in future debates, but I would not want him to think that my silence represented 100 per cent. assent with his words.

Mr. Griffiths

I realise that some of the evidence is contradictory, but the Ypsilanti project was the most thorough study of nursery education anywhere in the world. Many other elements play a part, such as the low pupil: teacher ratios, a curriculum appropriate to the child's development and parental involvement. That is why we should consider that research carefully.

Lady Olga Maitland

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such a crucial time. He mentioned the analysis, based on research in America, which suggests that some children are less likely to turn to crime. Does he not agree that children should learn to distinguish right from wrong and that that is something that they need to learn throughout their lives? It is totally spurious to say that everything results from their nursery education.

Mr. Griffiths

It is not totally spurious. Good-quality nursery education is important because it helps young people to develop social skills and awareness and so they are less likely to become involved in crime at a later date.

Obviously, other factors are involved but that one is important. I hope that the Government will support the Bill and allow it to go to Committee so that it can be amended to take account of the specific purpose of those who have presented it.

2.29 pm
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

I welcome the chance briefly to contribute to this debate. In this International Year of the Child it is appropriate that we should focus on children, their development and nursery education.

I welcome the Government's wide-ranging initiatives in putting an enormous amount of money, commitment and emotional concern into ensuring that our children have the best possible start in their careers. I am somewhat puzzled, however, by the decision of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to introduce this Bill because there is clearly some confusion within his party about its commitment to universal education.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 February.