Pre-school Education

HC Deb 18 June 1999 vol 333 cc735-42

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

2.30 pm

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am pleased to raise the crucial subject of pre-school education. Interest in it is reflected in approximately 180 parliamentary questions since the general election and in at least three Adjournment debates—notably on 25 June 1997, 18 May 1998 and 28 April 1999, initiated by my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) respectively. My only regret thus far is that we have not in this Parliament had a debate on this vital subject in Government time, but I feel sure that that omission will soon be remedied.

In preparation for today's debate, I have visited the Grendon, Little Ashes, Marsworth and Tingewick pre-school playgroups in my constituency, and I have plans to visit the Bright Start, Oakley and Bourton Meadow groups in the very near future. In addition, I have of course spoken to key players in the debate about this vital area of public policy. I shall give two examples.

I have spoken to Rob Checketts, the campaigns and parliamentary affairs officer of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, a leading educational charity which has 18,000 constituent member organisations and caters for about 850,000 young children. I have spoken also to Mrs. Fiona Humphreys, a senior development worker in the alliance, and to Ann McPhee, the head of early-years education and child care at Buckinghamshire county council, which I must emphasise runs a very good ship. Its early-years development partnership is to be congratulated. Nothing that I say should be taken as cavilling at that record. This is a critical subject and I have done my best to focus on what I consider to be its essential features. I shall talk about the benefits that pre-schools bring, the problems that they face and the challenges that they pose to the Government.

The benefits are increasingly accepted and clear for all to see. There is the opportunity to acquire language and creative and social skills. Typically, there are very good adult-child ratios—ordinarily 1:10, sometimes 1:8 and not infrequently 1:6. There is parental involvement in the provision of early-years education and child care, and an opportunity for parents to acquire experience, training and qualifications better to equip them for their lives not only as parents but, potentially, in the job market. There is an expectation of better career prospects, less criminality and decreased dependence on the state among people who have taken part in early-years education. Those are real advantages.

We know of innumerable case studies of people who have benefited from such education—and of those who have not benefited, or have suffered from, incarceration within a formal school environment at too early an age. I think of the four-year-old boy in Surrey who was miserable in such an environment, did not get on and went into a pre-school where he did much better. I think of the four-year-old girl in north-west London, whose case has been brought to my attention, who did so much better in the relatively relaxed but constructive environment of a pre-school, where she received greater attention than she had in a formal school environment.

Moreover, the benefits are not theoretical and the evidence is not merely anecdotal. There is detailed and compelling evidence, not only from this country but from others, of the merits of pre-school education, which in Britain has been going on for at least 40 years. The National Foundation for Educational Research, the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all pointed to the advantages of pre-schools and, as I have emphasised, to the potential long-term as well as short-term damage that children can suffer from premature starts to a structured school environment. Evidence to that effect is also available from other parts of western Europe and from research conducted by leading academics in the United States.

Pre-schools face problems—principally, an exponential increase in closures. In 1997 and 1998, 1,500 pre-schools closed in this country, and it is anticipated that, in 1999, up to 1,700 such pre-schools will close. That is in spite of the fact that, in the first Adjournment debate to which I alluded, on 25 June 1997, the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), said: we will not end up with a local authority-dominated programme."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 800.] A week short of two years on, it is precisely with such a programme that we have to contend.

In the most recent Adjournment debate, on 28 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), took pride in what she described as the Government's planned partnership approach. I hope that she will accept that, having made that remark, it is for her today to explain whether the expected closure of 1,700 pre-schools in 1999 is part of that planned partnership approach or an accidental consequence of the inadequacy of Government policies. We need to know, and I eagerly await the answer to that question.

The Government have undertaken a review of pre-school provision, recognising that there is a problem. Yet we are told that that review, which is to report to Ministers in August, will show—I paraphrase the Under-Secretary—not what is causing pre-schools to close, but simply how they can contribute to the expansion of early-years education and child care in the future. We cannot have the second without having the first; the two are conceptually and inextricably related. We need to know what is causing the problem so that we can effectively tailor the solution.

What is the source of the problem? There are many factors. First, there is no regulation of four-year-olds in school reception classes. There is no limit to the number of people who can be admitted. We know that, typically, there are adult-child ratios in those pre-school reception classes of 1:15 and sometimes 1:20, and that 90,000 children are in classes of 30 or more. Most people believe that that is far too large a class.

The second factor, which in a sense is the cause and explanation of the first, is that schools, buoyed by the offer of £1,130 a year for a four-year-old to join their ranks, are saying to parents, "Come, come now, or come never". If the parent agrees and the child goes, the money is provided, and the place in primary school subsequently is secure. The inference that we draw—and the inference drawn by thousands of parents throughout the country— is that, if parents do not agree to send their children into school reception classes at four, they will not have a place thereafter. The evidence is so strong as to be undeniable that what is taking place is educational force feeding on a massive scale, which effectively amounts to a change in the starting age for education.

If the Under-Secretary believes that people should start school earlier, let the Government make a proposal, let it be debated and let the House decide whether it wants this to happen. It is simply not acceptable that the change should occur by default.

The third factor is the impact of the national minimum wage and the working time directive. Higher wage costs, increased national insurance contributions and the obligation of paid leave are a triple whammy which is doing massive damage to independent private and voluntary sector playgroups the length and breadth of the country. I say in all sincerity to the Under-Secretary that I am not making a party political point about the minimum wage or the working time directive; that is a different debate. I accept that many people in those groups, as a cross-section of the population, might well support the minimum wage and the working time directive. Some of them tell me that they do. They are simply making the point that the ham-fisted manner of their introduction is damaging to their cause and that that is a source of regret.

In considering these factors, it is ironic to reflect upon the performance of the Minister when she was in opposition. I am sure that she will not mind that I have been into the cupboard and have retrieved a skeleton for the House to consider. On 13 February 1996, during consideration of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, the hon. Lady supported an amendment which, if agreed to, would have required the imposition of a statutory limit, of an adult-child ratio of 1:13. The hon. Lady is nodding vigorously from a sedentary position. She is not seeking to disavow her record but is evidently proud of it.

The corollary of that is that the hon. Lady must explain why she is now so dilatory about seeking to change the admission arrangements of reception classes and to oblige them to operate on a similar basis to the pre-school playgroups. It is precisely because there is no regulation that they are, like a vacuum, sucking in children and causing such problems for the pre-school playgroups.

On 16 June, only two days ago but more than a year after this matter was first subjected to review and consultation, the hon. Lady told me that the Government were considering whether to make changes in the arrangements. That is not good enough. The time for consideration is fast coming to a conclusion. The time for decision, action and remedy is approaching, if it is not with us now.

I do not doubt that the hon. Lady will tell us of the increased funding that the Government are providing to expand provision for three-year-olds—£41.5 million for 50 areas throughout the country to provide new free places for three-year-olds. There are two problems with that. First, that funding is being provided exclusively in metropolitan areas, and in areas where already the supply is good. The related point is that there is no funding or provision for rural areas, even though provision in those areas is frequently patchy.

Is there to be funding for some rural areas? If so, when will it be provided? Will the hon. Lady tell the House exactly how many more pre-schools will close in the interim? She will recognise that the situation is not static; it is fluid, it is evolving and it is constantly worsening. How many pre-school playgroup closures are an acceptable price to pay during the period in which Ministers cogitate before they come to a decision?

The hon. Lady's charm and persuasive powers are admired by many hon. Members throughout the House. However, I am sorry to have to tell her that her speech in May to the Pre-School Learning Alliance was not regarded as an unalloyed triumph. On that occasion, those present looked for reassurance. They were worried and they hoped that their worries would be assuaged. Yet, at the end of her contribution, they felt no better than they did at its start.

The challenge to the Minister is clear. There is a problem and it needs to be tackled. While Ministers dither, pre-schools die. In the short term, pre-schools need the kiss of life. In the medium term, and certainly in the long term, they need a level playing field upon which they can compete. I hope that the hon. Lady can offer me that reassurance and that pledge. I shall resume my place in eager anticipation of what the Minister has to say by way of reply.

2.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing this debate. I bumped into him yesterday in the Strangers Bar, where I was able to congratulate him outside the Chamber—I take the opportunity of doing so now within the Chamber—on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench. I said to him then, and I say to him now, that I look forward to sparring with him in future. Anybody tutored by Jonathan Aitken must have learned a thing or two.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising an issue that is crucial to children and their families—a view that we share. My encounter with him yesterday was made doubly pleasurable because he introduced me to the person whom he was with, who was the representative of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, to whom he alluded earlier.

As I hope to demonstrate, the Government support a vibrant voluntary sector infrastructure for the early years in our communities. It is an essential element of the third way philosophy to work in partnership with the private, voluntary and public sectors. I was therefore somewhat bemused to find that one of our partners seems to be rather busy inspiring debates—such as the one that has found its way into the Chamber today—which seek to challenge, criticise and undermine the Government's approach. I find that a rather strange way for the PLA to engage in dialogue with the Government. It is certainly not our third way. Perhaps it represents the emergence of a fourth way, in which the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the new Conservative Front-Bench team may be involved—a way that seems to lead nowhere fast.

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that our aim for early-years education is to provide the very best start for our young children. That is essential because, as he knows, it is the way that we create true equality of opportunity. In the British education system in particular, it is vital for us to do so if we are to deal with the long tail of underachievement that has been a factor in our education for far too long.

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that Buckinghamshire county council is doing a good job in developing a strong partnership locally and providing a good infrastructure in early-years education. I am delighted that the council has made good use of the substantial additional resources that we have given it. This year alone, there has been a 13.5 per cent. increase in the council's SSA for the early years. It now has a budget of £9.3 million from the Government to establish that infrastructure.

In addressing early-years education, the hon. Gentleman dealt only with the Pre-School Learning Alliance. I regret that. As I said, for us it is the entire infrastructure and the offer, together with the diversity represented by the statutory sector, the private sector—to which the hon. Gentleman did not allude—and the voluntary sector, which provide the strength of the emerging early-years education offer that we are developing.

Four out of five of our young children are getting their early-years education experience in nursery schools, nursery classes or reception classes. Those concerned with early-years education should consider what is happening there, what the offer is, how we can improve it, and what is going right or wrong, if they want to ensure the best start for all the children in their community.

It does not matter where children receive their early-years education. The institution, whatever we call it, does not matter. What matters is the nature of the experience that children enjoy in the setting, whatever it is. It is important that that experience should be appropriate to the age of the child and to the stage in that child's development.

Mr. Bercow

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is the nature of the experience within the setting that matters. However, does she accept that there is a relationship between the adult-child ratio, especially in the early years, and the nature of the experience? In other words, if the adult-child ratio in a school reception class is unfavourable, the experience suffers. Does she accept that a haemorrhage is taking place in the independent, voluntary and private sectors, and that the Government must address that?

Ms Hodge

I accept that one of the factors that impacts on the nature of the experience that young children enjoy is the ratio of adults to children. That is why we have consulted on regulation, and why I hope to announce shortly some conclusions from that consultation process. However, other things matter, such as the training and qualifications of those who work with young children, the nature of children's play and learning in the setting, the curriculum, the desirable learning outcomes—on which we are consulting—and the inspection regime, which we have had in train for the part of early-years education that attracts the nursery education grant. Again, there is not a unified system.

A range of issues matter, of which the ratio of adults to children is only one, although I am delighted that a Conservative Member has suddenly accepted that that ratio, which we believe matters for five, six and seven-year-olds as well, is important. It is a shame that that was not recognised somewhat earlier, when the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were in government.

We clearly value the role that the Pre-School Learning Alliance plays in the early-years education offer and, because of that, we set aside £500,000 last year to ensure that those pre-schools that were in difficulty could be sustained while they adjusted to a new arena. This year, we have set aside a further £500,000 for the same purpose. I have quite properly established a review to find out, but not in a negative way, why some pre-schools, as they existed in the past, closed. However, it will also examine, in a positive way, how, during the massive expansion in the funding of early-years education and as shown by the Pre-School Learning Alliance—the voluntary sector can contribute to that expansion.

The hon. Gentleman must accept that, if we are spending over four years 30 per cent. above what his party spent in its last four years in government; if there is such massive expansion; and if the voluntary sector can participate in that expansion, we must find out what barriers are preventing expansion. He makes claims, which have been put to him by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, of extensive closures. He will know that our figures do not show that. The figures that we have published in the education statistics on children's day care facilities show a reduction of about only 100 pre-schools to the year ending March 1998. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am happy to ensure that he is sent the tables showing those figures. As he knows, we are in discussion with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see whether and how we can reconcile our differing views.

Mr. Bercow

rose—

Ms Hodge

I shall give way, but I will not be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. My question is simple: if, at the end of this year, the Pre-School Learning Alliance provides her with a list of the pre-school groups—named, area by area—that have closed, will she retract her remarks and admit that she was wrong and it was right?

Ms Hodge

No, I will not, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. I do not distrust the figures that are being put together by officials on the basis of official data; the reality of what is happening is in the very nature of a voluntary pre-school movement.

Pre-schools open and close. They open when a particularly active group of parents want to establish a pre-school, but those parents may not be replaced as they move on over time or the need for a pre-school in a particular area disappears. One school may close, but another may open. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example: in Cumbria last year, seven pre-schools closed, but nine new ones opened. The opening and closing of pre-schools is intrinsic and essential to the value and the nature of the pre-school movement. That is why I have some problem with the Pre-School Learning Alliance's figures and why I am delighted that we are engaging in a debate with it to determine whose figures are right.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, our guidelines speak about ensuring the health of the voluntary and private sectors in local partnership. When I approved all the early-years child care partnerships, I took particular care to look at the health of the private and voluntary sector partnerships. We shall double the number of places available to three-year-olds in the coming period, so I have stressed in the guidance that, as this Government are in the driving seat for the first time, we expect to see diversity in the approach that is taken.

There has been no sudden increase in the number of children going into statutory settings since we came to office. The figures show that, in January 1998, 79 per cent. of four-year-olds were in an LEA setting. That figure reflected the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government as a result of their ill-conceived nursery vouchers scheme. The most recent figures that we have, for January 1999, show that, a year after we came to office, the figure is exactly the same. There has been absolutely no change. Therefore, the suggestion that, since this Government came to power and started to expand early-years education, there has been a surge of children leaving the voluntary and private sector and going into the statutory sector is simply not borne out by the figures.

The hon. Gentleman discussed a number of issues. The early experience of Ofsted inspections demonstrates that the diversity and quality of the voluntary and statutory sectors are influencing parental choice. The voluntary sector has made great strides in improving quality, but if we want to give parents a choice, showing them openly the results of those inspections is bound to influence that choice. I referred to regulation and ratios. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time for consideration is fast coming to a conclusion, and I assure him that we are doing that.

On the minimum wage, the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagree. One of his hon. Friends wrote to me recently about a pre-school in his constituency that was complaining about the impact of the minimum wage. He showed me the budget of that pre-school, which showed that some of the people there, who were working with young children at a crucial period in their development, were being paid £1.80 an hour. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is appropriate, in an early-years setting, to have people paid at that very low rate, I have to disagree. I am all for voluntary support by parents, whether the setting is private, voluntary or statutory, but I cannot accept that young children should be cared for and educated, at a stage when they develop so quickly, by people who are paid that ridiculously low rate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the expansion of nursery education for three-year-olds. As he knows, we are determined to extend our early-years offer. We have said that we will double the number of places available for three-year-olds during this Parliament. We started that expansion this year in the 57 most deprived areas; next year, all areas, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will be able to enjoy it.

A debate that simply supports the Pre-School Learning Alliance is, at worst, muddled, illogical and ill-thought-out, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to think again. If it reflects the beginning of a change in Conservative party policy, it will lead to the destruction of parental choice at the behest of one specific producer interest. That should not be what we are about. It will curtail the independence of local authorities, partnerships and schools to determine, in a locally accountable way, their own policies and procedures. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) argued strongly against that when he was—

The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock.