House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jul 1993

Column 59

Government. It would be helpful to know what the hon. Gentleman's party would do with grant-maintained schools. Are you going to go down the same route--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the rule that all remarks must be addressed to the Chair. I do not think that he intended to put that question to me.

Mr. Pawsey : Certainly not. I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intended to direct my remarks entirely to the hon. Gentleman who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Incidentally, it is significant that he is alone, enjoying no support from other members of his party. Perhaps that is a clue to what they think about their party's policies. Nevertheless, let me hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about grant- maintained schools and whether his party would keep them or abolish them.

Mr. Foster : My Liberal Democrat colleagues have full confidence in all the remarks that I am likely to make. Hon. Members will, of course, note that there is a greater proportion of Liberal Democrats present than of Conservatives.

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not answer the question. Will 23,000 quasi-independent schools provide an adequate education service? The crucial issue is surely whether we believe that schools can take all the decisions affecting the education service or whether some issues should be decided by a body at a higher level than individual schools. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should continue to move towards giving more power and autonomy to individual schools but that schools should still be contained within a local and democratically accountable strategic planning framework. The proposals by the hon. Gentleman and his party would lose that framework to the detriment of education as a whole. I do not dissent from the amendments, but it is nevertheless important to reflect on the fact that the Under-Secretary of State said that it was the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) who had put his finger on a particular problem which it was "essential to correct". The Government's failure to recognise the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman shows all too clearly the haste with which the legislation was cobbled together. The need for amendment after amendment to be tabled in the House and in another place shows that the Government have introduced legislation that has not been thought through properly.

It is important to remember how many amendments the Government have had to table. From the figures that I have been given, I understand that the Government had to table 278 amendments in Committee, 78 on Report, a further 258 in another place, 296 on Report in another place and a further 71 on Third Reading in another place. Today, the Government have tabled still more amendments. That works out at an average of three amendments per clause on a Bill that is already one of the longest ever to come before the House. It is clearly proof of the incompetence with which the legislation was put together. On our debate on the timetable motion, we heard about not only the incompetence with which the Bill was put

Column 60

together but the incompetent way in which it has proceeded through both Houses. It is therefore no wonder that a report in The Guardian last week stated :

"What is--or certainly should be--quite indisputable is that the process which has carried this bill thus far has been a disgrace to Parliament."

I entirely concur with that sentiment.

The clause and the amendments draw the attention of the House to the Secretary of State's increasing powers. Many members of the Opposition parties are extemely worried about those powers. The Secretary of State received 500 additional powers under the Education Reform Act 1988. The Secretary of State now has powers to open and close schools ; powers over what should be taught in those schools and over the information that should be published about them ; powers in respect of their funding and admission arrangements ; and, indeed, powers over whether specialisation--often a euphemism for selection--can be introduced into those schools.

Those powers are greater than those given to a comparable Minister in any other European country and mean that the Secretary of State for Education has more powers than any Minister with the exception of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State's powers are being used to diminish the co-operation and partnership between local education authorities, governors, individual schools and teachers, which were developed as part of the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State's increasing powers prove that the Government care more for their dogma than for the well-being of children.

5.45 pm

The amendments draw to our attention the way in which education is increasingly being run by quangos. Recent figures have revealed that about one fifth of all public expenditure is now controlled by quangos. In recent years, the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council have been created, and the Bill will create new funding authorities for grant-maintained schools. It must be a matter of great concern to many hon. Members that the quangos have as members people who are not democratically elected but appointed by the Secretary of State. They can hold meetings in private at which they can take decisions for which there is no democratic accountability. More important, the quangos have no base in the local communities. The clause and the amendments signal the break-up of the co-operation and partnership created under the 1944 Act.

The Under-Secretary said that he believed that many of us would come to welcome the Bill in retrospect. I must tell him that he is sadly mistaken, because, as I have said many times--this will cause a look of great pain to appear on the Under-Secretary's face--I truly believe that the Bill will bring chaos and division to our education service. I knew that he was wondering when that phrase would occur. Equally important, the Bill fails to deal with many of the important issues facing our education service, not least the underfunding of our schools and the crucial need to increase the availability of nursery education.

The Bill, as reflected in the increased powers given to the Secretary of State, not only will be a short-term disappointment to us all but will certainly be a long-term disaster for the education service. H. G. Wells said :

"Human activity becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe".

Column 61

But, if the Bill is passed, education and catastrophe will be running neck and neck.

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the extension of the Government's powers. That extension is undeniable, but it has become necessary because the co- operation and partnership of which he spoke so warmly sadly turned out to be a co-operation for mediocrity and a partnership in low expectations. That was the record of education during all the decades when the localities were in charge and when the centre--Governments of both parties--had very few powers. I believe that it has therefore become a regrettable necessity for the Government to take greater powers. That is obviously reflected--

Mr. Don Foster : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden : No. I may give way later, but we are approaching the time limit on this debate.

Clause 1 refers to the Secretary of State exercising his powers "with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice." In the short time left to me, I want to address my remarks specifically to the problem of girls and women in education and how clause 1 affects them.

I happen to be a feminist--of the most high-minded sort. One of the things that has seriously disturbed me in this country, in contrast to the achievements of other countries, is the appalling under-achievement and under-expectation of girls and women at every level of the education system. That is why I share the view of Opposition Members, and of some Conservative Members, that nursery education, which does not feature in the Bill and which is not mentioned specifically in clause 1, is a primary necessity, not just because of its general and social advantages, but specifically to make an early start to improve the expectations of girls from the age of two and a half upwards. I have seen that happen in other countries, most notably in France in the maternelles, which a daughter of mine attended.

From the age of two and half, girls are treated intellectually--if one can use such a big word--and practically on the same level as boys. We all know that old-fashioned traditionalist practices pertain when girls are left in the home. In those early years, perhaps less is required of a little girl who is sent away with her dolls and such like and perhaps more is required of a boy. Removing a girl from that kind of background, particularly in traditionalist British society, is a positive good, quite apart from the other general arguments for nursery education. That is the first stage where we go wrong in this country and where girls begin to lose.

I am in favour of the provisions for grant-maintained schools because they will enhance quality and expectations for all, and particularly for girls. Those who de facto have been in control of our education system for decades --not the Government, but the education establishment and local authorities --have failed to raise expectations for all and specifically for girls.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : I am indebted to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he acknowledge that the majority of chief education officers in this country are men? In so far as the Bill promotes GM schools, those schools will be controlled by parents and governors. Many

Column 62

parents and governors will be women. Indeed, at least half the parents will be women. Therefore, women will be able to take an active role in promoting the cause of education and equality for women in schools.

Mr. Walden : My hon. Friend has made a good point, which supports the flow of my argument and which is yet another reason for being in favour of such schools.

The national curriculum will help because girls, who traditionally tended to drop science or mathematics and were not encouraged to develop their talents in that area, will no longer be able to drop those subjects. I believe that we will gain benefits economically and as a society from that.

However, if, despite our efforts, the intrinsic drive towards mediocrity which is so culturally deep seated in the education establishment of this country persists, we will have a system in which schools will fail girls relatively. That failure will continue. Indeed, I believe that we are seeing that already in higher education.

With regard to higher education, there is still a huge disproportion in the number of girls studying what are broadly categorised as arts subjects--or "soft" subjects as they are sometimes called--as opposed to the harder subjects like physics. If the education system does not succeed in increasing diversity, to which clause 1 refers, particularly for women, an horrific prospect will loom before us.

In respect of the historically vast and sudden expansion of higher education and the enormous and overdue expansion of the proportion of women in higher education--I believe that women now comprise about 50 per cent. of those in higher education--there is a general danger of standards being lowered if schools do not prepare pupils to maintain those standards. We run the risk of producing from our higher education establishments an enormous number of women graduates who will have been sold a pup.

The standards required in those establishments, particularly in the arts subjects, are falling. Indeed, the slippage can already be noted with regard to A-levels. Some English papers are very slipshod. One can get by with just a few 20th-century authors and possibly one Shakespeare work. One need know nothing more about the history of English literature.

Mr. Enright : Where is the evidence for that?

Mr. Walden : In such circumstances, women will be very bitter, because they will emerge from higher education with a rather mediocre degree-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has made a most pathetic and unthinking intervention which, in a way, I rather expected from him. He said that what I am saying is sexist. What I am saying is pro-feminist. I am glad to see Members on the Opposition Front Bench nodding.

Mr. Enright : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden : No. I will not give way until I have finished. I do not want to see the women of this country sold a pup in terms of higher education. I want them to have the highest possible standards and the highest possible expectations based on what is expected in schools so that they do not go through higher education, posssibly from a poor background and possibly the first generation in the family to do that, emerge with a crummy degree and end

Column 63

up behind a typewriter or word processor. That would be a bitter disappointment for them and an extremely expensive way of producing people to work on word processors.

Right from the word go, from the age of two and a half, we must change the culture of expectations, and of girls in particular, so that we do not sell them a pup progressively through the education system to the higher levels.

Mr. Forth : With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to this brief debate as quickly as I can. I am tempted to take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) although perhaps I will have a word with him afterwards. With regard to the key point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), it was never the Government's or the Secretary of State's intention to take the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) somehow to extend the Secretary of State's powers in some mystical way over higher education. Like the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I well recall the strength and violence of the debate in another place on this issue where those most directly concerned with higher education took the opportunity to re-emphasise their independence.

I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will accept that, while clause 1 states, as it should, the general responsibility on the Secretary of State for Education to promote education in its widest sense, clause 2 makes it explicit that that general responsibility will be expressed in the use of the powers of the Secretary of State solely in schools and in further education. That was our response to the concerns that were expressed in another place, in an effort to make that distinction as clear as possible.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr made a good point about how the distinction would be carried through on the ground to the higher and further education sectors. The further and higher education funding councils are developing an understanding of the different roles of their sectors. They are beginning to identify, in that overlapping partnership, ways in which different institutions can make their best contribution. The developing role of the Secretary of State, which is outlined in clause 2, will sit well with that, led and guided by the role of the funding councils in order to make sure that we make the best possible use of that partnership which hon. Members welcome in the developing role of further education, working ever more closely with higher education.

Clauses 1 and 2 are not threatening ; they are a positive development. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend for the role that he played in this

It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker,-- pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker-- put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos 2 to 6 agreed to.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the issue

Column 64

of sub judice. It arises from current litigation in the High Court this morning--the Queen v. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte the right hon. Lord Rees-Mogg. One is concerned with the view that the Government are taking of the issue of sub judice. It is reported that a Government spokesman has said : "The Government did not oppose the application. We will of course oppose the substance. Now that leave has been granted, the matter is sub judice."

If that view were to prevail, and were it to be interpreted in the broad sense, it could inhibit the whole discussion in this honourable House on a matter of great public controversy. If it were a narrow interpretation of the minutiae of the litigation, our concern would be less. But if any litigant can go along to the High Court and seek for judicial review, which of course is a comparatively recent innovation, on a matter which is a current major political controversy, it would mean that this High Court of Parliament would be muzzled.

Therefore, I ask that the Government immediately, in the person of the Attorney-General, clarify the matter and say whether it is the correct view that the Government regard the matter as sub judice. The whole House will be interested, whatever view is taken by No. 10 Downing street and its spokesmen of sub judice, to know what view would be taken by the Chair on the general position which might inhibit the whole discussion on Thursday and indeed possibly--I hope not--call it in question?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : The House will be aware that the House has its own clear rules on the question of matters sub judice. This matter must be considered by Madam Speaker. It is not for me to prejudge the issue. I will of course ensure, if she does not know already, that Madam Speaker is made aware of this exchange. I do not think that the matter can be taken further at this moment.

Mr. Morris : I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not my intention, I can assure you, to continue with the matter at this very moment. It has only recently been brought to our attention, and I am grateful for the indication that you have given. But two matters arise. I would hope to clear the air, lest some unfortunate and wrong conception be given to the world at large that a view is given in the course of the evening before we adjourn tonight. The Government should seek an opportunity to make a statement. I hope that Madam Speaker will also clarify what the Chair's view would be in the somewhat strange, novel and uncharted ground tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I have no doubt that the Treasury Front Bench will have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. No doubt Madam Speaker will shortly be aware of them, too. I cannot take the matter further now. I am also very conscious that we are working to a guillotine and that other important business is before us.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I am not prepared to take a further point of order on this matter.

Mr. Marlow : It is a different point or order.

Column 65

Madam Deputy Speaker : If it is different.

Mr. Marlow : It is a different point of order. Briefly, we are scheduled to have a debate on Thursday. That debate arises from clause 7 of what will be an Act of Parliament only if it receives Royal Assent. At the moment, that Bill is subject to legal doubts. Is it proper for a Bill which is subject to legal doubts to be put before Her Majesty for Royal Assent?

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is not a matter for me in the Chair at this moment. We must now consider the next group of amendments.

Clause 2

Funding Agency for Schools

Lords amendment : No. 7, in page 2, line 7, at end insert--

("( ) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant- maintained schools having foundation governors")

Mr. Forth : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments : Nos. 8 to 10, 23 and 175. No. 177, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

No. 180 and Government amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d). No. 181 and Government motion to disagree.

Nos. 397 to 399, No. 401 and No. 403.

Mr. Forth : This group of amendments concerns the funding authorities ; many of them are either technical or deal with minor omissions and tidying up. The main issues covered by the amendments are membership of the funding authorities and a new function for the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of value of money'. Let me deal first with the amendments on membership. In response to concerns expressed in the other place by representatives of the voluntary sector, the Secretary of State will now be under a duty to consult both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church before making any appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools. In reality, those organisations will be the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of the funding agency for schools an individual representative of the voluntary sector. By virtue of amendment No. 8, the Secretary of State will have to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of both the FAS and the Schools Funding Council for Wales an individual with experience in providing for pupils with special educational needs. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has tabled two amendments which would tie the LEAs into the Funding Agency for Schools. I hope and expect--I have said this many times in Committee and in the House--that the FAS and LEAs will work together in close co-operation, but it would not be appropriate to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of local education authorities before

Column 66

making appointments to the FAS. That agency has a role in relation to grant-maintained schools, not to LEA-maintained schools. I refer now to amendment No. 177, which I cannot commend to the House. Of course the Government are wholly committed to ensuring that public funds are used with economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the growing grant-maintained sector. My noble Friend agreed in the other place that there should be a clear requirement on the face of the legislation for value-for-money studies to that end, but right hon. and hon. Members will realise that there are technicalities which need to be got right, which include safeguarding the valued independence of the National Audit Office.

The fundamental problem with amendment No. 177, although I support its thrust, is that it places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations which could be regarded as biting on the independent role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that that would be of concern not only to hon. Members in general but to the Public Accounts Committee in particular.

To rectify that defect, the Government propose a new clause in lieu of Lords amendment No. 177 in part 1, as set out on the Paper. That would place an explicit duty on the funding authorities to ensure value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools. That duty is already implicit in the monitoring roles proposed for the FAS and its Welsh counterpart, but the amendment will place beyond all possible doubt both the duty on the funding authorities and the importance that the Government place on accountability and the proper stewardship of taxpayers' money. The amendment would not trespass on the responsibilities and independence of the National Audit Office, whose recent report on financial controls in the grant-maintained sector I am sure hon. Members will have read with interest, as I did.

Indeed, the NAO's responsibilities and independence of action in this matter are properly enshrined in Lords amendment No. 180, which I fully support. That places on the face of the legislation the Comptroller and Auditor General's right of access to the accounts of each and every grant- maintained school. That right is presently secured only through secondary legislation. The amendment also provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to this House each Session on whether he has carried out any value-for-money studies of GM schools, and if so, what are their results. In determining the programme of studies of the National Audit Office, he will also be required to take account of any relevant report published by the Audit Commission.

That provision will have a dual effect. It will ensure that there is no unnecessary double banking. However, if the findings of the Audit Commission indicate that further investigations are warranted, the Comptroller and Auditor General may build on what has already been made public. I am sure that the increase in transparency--through the annual reports to Parliament and the encouragement for more professional scrutiny in a co-ordinated way--will be welcomed by hon. Members.

Amendment No. 181 and the Government's amendment to amendment No. 180 are technical ones relating to definitions. Parliamentary counsel has advised that the approach in amendment No. 180 is preferable. Amendments (b), (c) and (d) to amendment No. 180 would

Column 67

require grant-maintained schools to send their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General and for him to make them available for public inspection.

I want to make two comments on that. First, the amendments are defective, unless the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) intended to place on schools the onerous burden of sending to the Comptroller and Auditor General not simply the audited accounts but all the supporting documentation of financial transactions during the year. Secondly, the amendments are unnecessary, because grant-maintained schools are already required to make their audited accounts available for inspection by any member of the public.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : We are discussing a wide group of amendments, but that is part of the difficulty with the time constraint under which we are operating this evening. The amendments to which the Minister referred initially--those relating to membership of the funding agency--are generally welcomed, not least because we made suggestions along similar lines in Committee and, indeed, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In Committee, the Minister told us that it would be inappropriate to prescribe who should be on the funding agency and it should not be a "ragbag of individual interests". I am glad that he has changed his approach and is willing to accept that there should be some guidance with regard to the membership of the Committee.

The Minister did not mention the amendment dealing with section 11 funding and the distribution of section 11 funds through the funding agency. I wish thaal on section 11 funding is causing great and real hardship. I wish that we had more time to explore that fully and that the Minister had spoken about that aspect as well.

The amendments that I want to concentrate on are those that the Minister dealt with at the end of his contribution--amendment No. 177 and the Government's amendments to the Lords suggestions. Clearly, there is a need for greater accountability for grant-maintained schools. After all, we are talking about public money. The recent debate, abeit a brief one, on the Select Committee report on education expenditure threw up many interesting items. One of the most significant items was the extent of double funding of grant-maintained schools and, indeed, the bias with regard to capital for grant-maintained schools.

6.15 pm

It is clear that GM schools had an unfair share of the cake in the past. The fact that there has been insufficient scrutiny of the distribution of funds is a cause for great concern and alarm. I remind the Minister that more than half the present 492 GM schools are double-funded with regard to their annual maintenance grant. Many of them gain considerable amounts of money at the expense of local education authority schools in that area--the budgets of local education authority schools are robbed to give grant- maintained schools extra provision.

Column 68

It is a fact that the first schools to seek grant-maintained status got a higher degree of double funding and that advantage may be drying up. When the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked about funds for GM schools, he said that funding would become increasingly tight. That is the case. However, there is still a great deal of double payment, and the Government have done nothing whatever to redress that problem. The Government have acknowledged that that happens, yet they continue to pour money in that direction. When the civil servants appeared before the Select Committee recently to discuss the problem, they said that there had been a deliberate political decision by Ministers to double-fund GM schools because that was their political preference and they wanted to reward schools that went in that direction.

The extent of the double-funding on an annual grant basis is £13.6 million. The highest beneficiary is St. Bartholomew's school in Newbury, which benefited to the extent of more than £200,000. Obviously, that did not pay off in terms of the by-election result in that area. I have not had an opportunity to find out whether any schools in the Christchurch area have had the advantage of double funding--perhaps the Government have already given up on Christchurch.

There has been a stunning silence from the Government as to why grant- maintained schools are being double-funded at a time when public expenditure is so tight. It is clear from paragraph 22 of the Select Committee report that

"The Government's plans for capital spending on schools appear to us to favour the GM sector rather than the LEA sector".

The Minister is nodding. That is an admission that education funding is determined by political and ideological soundness, not by education need. That is a disgraceful situation, and Ministers should be ashamed of it. If they had any real interest in the educational development of children, they would not tolerate it for one moment. I return to the main point--the need for further scrutiny of grant-maintained schools with regard to both the money they receive and the way in which they spend it. Recently, the Audit Commission reported on some of the problems that LMS has created for many schools. The report detailed the way in which schools operate under LMS at present. We know from previous debates that all hon. Members support the principle of LMS.

We must all acknowledge that there are many problems in terms of the formulae that have been created and the many difficulties that have arisen as a result. The report shows that there has been an increase in the pupil- staff ratio. Since LMS was introduced, class sizes have increased. That is partly a problem of the formulae and partly a problem of the arrangement that was imposed by Ministers with regard to the payment of staff salaries. Nevertheless, it is a significant problem that should be addressed in the future. It is right that the Audit Commission should be able to identify such problems with regard to local authority schools. It is also right for the Audit Commission to examine GM schools, identify such problems and warn us that those problems are arising.

The Audit Commission report highlighted many of the anomalies, difficulties and problems that have arisen from LMS in terms of the tendering process and letting contracts. The press picked on the more sensational

Column 69

aspects of the report, such as the odd occasions when head teachers let contracts to relatives and improprieties of that sort. Obviously, such matters should be brought into the open.

There is a clear need for such constraints and scrutiny to apply to grant- maintained schools as well as schools in the local authority sector. Therefore, we do not accept that the amendment tabled by the Minister is an adequate substitute for amendment No. 177, which was passed in another place. The advantage of amendment No. 177 is that its intention and wording are clear, and it provides for a proper basis for scrutiny. The Minister's amendments fudge the real issue. They do not ensure the level of scrutiny that we require. Given all that has been said recently by the Prime Minister, Ministers in the Cabinet and junior Ministers about the need to remove secrecy from all levels of Government, it is about time that Ministers sought to remove secrecy from quangos and those who benefit from the money distributed by quangos.

The Funding Agency for Schools will have a great deal of power and money at its disposal. It already has. It is essential that every aspect of public funding is open to the fullest scrutiny. We do not believe that the Minister's amendments will achieve that aim. We believe that Lords amendment No. 177 in particular should become part of the Bill because it will ensure a higher level of public accountability and we should be responsible for ensuring that that is achieved.

Mrs. Mahon : I shall speak to amendment No. 177, which deals with value for money, and touch on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on double funding. Two years after the Government introduced changes to allow schools to opt out, we face a potential crisis in Calderdale local authority. The entire council structure is being undermined by the Government's changes. So alarmed are councillors from all parties that, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, Calderdale council is to spearhead a national campaign to highlight the unfairness of the funding of grant-maintained schools. I may add that scrutiny and accountability come into that campaign.

Tory-led Calderdale council claims that the current formula pumps thousands of pounds a year into grant-maintained schools at the expense of schools that remain under local authority control. From the way in which the Minister nodded, I suppose that he thinks that that is all right. It is worth emphasising that the campaign has all-party support and that the council is at present run by the Conservatives.

I have already told the Minister the position of the ex-mayor on the matter. The ex-mayor said :

"The education department had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opting-out legislation. A third of all secondary schools are now grant maintained in Calderdale and the proportion could rise to almost half by April next year."

He also said :

"If we do not do something about it, we could be committing our schools to a potentially disastrous situation."

It is vital that we achieve the scrutiny and accountability that Lords amendment No. 177 would provide. The truth about the current unfairness in the financing of grant-maintained schools is that it takes place at the expense of local authority schools. I see the Minister nod in approval again. Grant-maintained schools are also

Column 70

receiving extra capital. They receive a far more generous allocation of resources than the equivalent local education authority schools. Other LEA services are being deprived of resources to provide the additional funding for schools which have received grant- maintained status. Opposition Members believe that that is simply unfair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury referred to capital grants. Earlier this year in Calderdale, we saw the real face of the Government's ideological commitment to one type of education, when they granted three grant-maintained schools in Calderdale over £400, 000 in capital grants while the other 109 LEA schools received thousands of pounds less. One grant-maintained school received £225, 000, which was £20,000 more than the other 109 schools put together. That is wrong.

What does the Minister have against children in LEA schools? Why do the Government discriminate in that way? Why did that one school receive £225,000 more than all the other 109 put together? It is simply unfair. I submit that it was simply a crude bribe to encourage the other schools to opt out as they became desperate for funding.

Mr. Don Foster : In November 1992, the Secretary of State categorically stated :

"Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms."--[ Official Report, 9 November 1992 ; Vol. 213, c. 651.]

Is the hon. Lady surprised to hear that, in view of what she has been saying?

Next Section

Home Page