HC Deb 20 March 1996 vol 274 cc357-9
3. Mr. Harry Greenway

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number of new places to be provided and at what cost under the nursery education voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [20125]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard)

The Government's nursery voucher scheme will mean that, over time, there is a nursery education place for every four-year-old. The Government are injecting £390 million of new money into nursery education for four-year-olds over the next three years.

Mr. Greenway

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of eligible parents have already applied for nursery vouchers in the four trial areas, thus proving the effectiveness of the scheme? Is she aware that, in my constituency, Labour-controlled Ealing council is withholding nursery provision money for 40 children whose parents want to send them to Wood End infant school because that school is grant-maintained? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, currently before the House, is excellent because it will take away that miserable power from local authorities, which they are abusing so much in Ealing and elsewhere?

Mrs. Shephard

I can confirm that 70 per cent. of parents have completed their forms—four out of five in Norfolk. I can also confirm that, by this time next year, there will be no room for councils such as Ealing to withhold nursery education from children whose parents want it.

Mr. Kilfoyle

Although we accept that the Secretary of State will extol the virtues of market forces in supplying nursery places—despite her better instincts and because she is being driven by the No. 10 policy unit—what will she do about provision in areas, say a rural village, where the market does not provide places but where parents have vouchers to use?

Mrs. Shephard

Welcome to the self-described working-class hero. Given the hon. Gentleman's rapid conversion last night from working-class hero to—I think—Mohammed Ali, it can be only a matter of time before he is converted to market forces too. We know that Labour Members oppose choice in education and prize the interests of institutions above those of parents. The point of the nursery voucher scheme is that it will encourage many providers to register for it, as has already happened. Six hundred providers have registered to join the scheme from the private and voluntary sectors-40 of them are new providers. We certainly expect those providers, combined of course with local education authority provision and partnerships between the various sectors, to provide for the needs of our four-year-olds through the nursery voucher scheme.

Mr. Riddick

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour local education authorities that have refused to take part in this year's pilot scheme are denying places to a number of four-year-olds for purely ideological reasons? Is that not an absolute disgrace? Is the scheme not extending parental choice in a real and radical way? Once parents have experienced it, they will never want to go back to the old way of doing things.

Mrs. Shephard

Yes, it is indeed perverse in the extreme that such local education authorities should oppose a scheme that is investing a total of £750 million in good-quality education that is inspected, with proper educational outcomes, for four-year-olds. As I have already been quoted as saying, such opposition is indeed pathetic.

4. Mrs. Bridget Prentice

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to top up the value of a nursery voucher for children with special educational needs. [20126]

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

My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a differential nursery voucher value for children with special educational needs.

Mrs. Prentice

Is the Minister aware that parents of children with special educational needs will be more than disappointed by that answer and the answer that he gave in last night's debate on the subject? It is miserable and miserly. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) that nursery education for such children will require extra funding? What is the Minister prepared to do about providers who will be unwilling to take on those children for £1,100 worth of nursery vouchers?

Mr. Squire

If the hon. Lady takes the trouble to read our proceedings in Committee, she will realise that not only the Government but the Opposition spokesman and virtually all outside groups that specialise in special educational needs recognise that the way ahead is not through a differential voucher. One of the many benefits of the voucher system is that it should enable earlier diagnosis of special needs—which I am sure she and the parents to whom she has referred will welcome. That does not change the underlying funding of LEAs. What the House approved last night was the granting of powers to LEAs that will be reflected in the same way as other LEA powers in the annual standard spending assessment. That will particularly assist children who are short of full statementing but who have special educational needs.

Ms Estelle Morris

It is becoming increasingly clear that nursery special needs provision is the most flawed aspect of a very flawed scheme; there are no more resources and inadequate inspection. Will the Minister reassure the House today that there will be no watering down of the special needs code of practice as it will be applied to nursery schools? In particular, will he confirm that that very important early assessment under the code will continue to be done by fully qualified teachers?

Mr. Squire

To repeat in part what I said to the House yesterday, the commitment to the code of practice, or something similar that better reflects the different nature of voluntary providers, is there and up-front. It is understood by the groups that I have met on behalf of children with special needs—[Interruption.] It is not a laughing point. Labour Front Benchers are smiling, but I promise them that this is a serious point. There may yet be aspects of the code of practice that do not exactly transfer into the different settings, but I have made a pledge to the House—I repeat it now—that, in those circumstances, an equivalent code will be produced, and it will certainly apply to the other providers.