Previous Section Home Page

Column 169

Doctors have both an ethical and legal duty to abide by their patients' wishes. A clinician must of course be satisfied that a patient's decision to refuse treatment is genuine, made in a full understanding of the consequences, and not influenced by others. Someone who has a learning disability, who is mentally ill, confused as a result of drugs, or a child may not be capable of making a proper decision.

As the House has already noted, some people draw up advance directives or "living wills". They have been referred to in literature recently as advance statements, which are drawn up so that people's wishes may be taken into account in the future if, at that time, they are unable to express their views. Such statements are an extension of the patient's right to say no to treatment, and are supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and the Law Commission.

The commission makes recommendations, however, that advance statements be defined in legislation and their status clarified in law. We shall consider that proposal. Advance statements are of course nothing to do with euthanasia. They cannot require doctors to perform an illegal act such as deliberate killing.

I regard palliative care as one of the great advances in our society in recent years, as has been mentioned eloquently by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In recent years, we have continued to support, with a sixfold rise in central funding, hospices and palliative care services. We shall continue to do so. We recognise their enormous contribution. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) said, in Holland there is little palliative care.

In conclusion, I shall re-state the Government's opinion. We are not engaged in any action that we believe would take us down a slippery slope. We envisage no change to the law or practice at present. I emphasise that the Government remain firmly opposed to euthanasia.

Column 170

Neath General Hospital

12.59 pm

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath): On 18 and 19 March 1995, Neath hospital hit national headlines because its casualty unit was closed overnight; but that was only the tip of the iceberg. There is a crisis at the hospital, of which that casualty closure was simply an example. I believe that the hospital is deliberately being allowed to bleed to death as a result of Welsh Office policy.

The Secretary of State for Wales favours local hospitals and opposes centralisation. I applaud that. The way in which he has openly nailed his colours to the mast in that respect is very welcome. However, paradoxically, in practice his officials are sabotaging the policy that he has advocated, and that is no more clearly shown than in the impact on Neath hospital.

On 19 January 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I met the Secretary of State. To be fair, we were very impressed with his response. The Secretary of State said that he supported the local hospital. He said that he would agree to additional recruitment in excess of the going rate, and that he would give a clear commitment to the future of the hospital. That was very welcome.

However, since then, we have had two more vacancies in anaesthetics and one more vacancy among surgical consultants. The hospital now says that it cannot recruit any more senior house officers after August, except by going to Germany and except by allowing a trend to continue whereby the hospital will soon be staffed almost entirely by overseas doctors.

Neath hospital has traditionally functioned as the only district hospital in West Glamorgan supplying a full range of facilities and opportunities in general medicine, general surgery, obstetrics, gynaecology, trauma, orthopaedics, paediatrics and accident and emergency. It has always had the reputation of being an efficient hospital with low costs, short waiting lists and strong support from the local public, local general practitioners and the purchasing health authority.

For some years, there has been a demand--indeed there were proposals--for a replacement hospital. That has at last been agreed, but only after the saga has dragged on for many years. The outcome was that, following a review by the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State agreed that there would be a replacement general hospital. However, it would have only 250 beds instead of the present 350-bed facility at Neath, and, instead of providing the full range of general hospital facilities that are provided at Neath, the new hospital would admit all emergency and elective planned cases with a mix of medical emergency cases and elective surgery work but would require that all trauma and high risk elective surgical cases--by that, I mean emergency surgical patients--would be treated elsewhere. It was hoped that, if that model were implemented, the hospital would be up and running in about three years.

That model was accepted by the local community, not because we favoured it- -we had grave suspicions about it, which are now proving well founded--but because we felt that it was necessary to get the new hospital up and running, and that half a loaf was better than no bread.

Column 171

Many consultants, and all local GPs, believe that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which is now being introduced by stealth, is not feasible--is seriously flawed--because it was based on the proposition that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan, whereas anyone who knows the region knows that that is not the case.

Last year, Neath hospital was closed 90 times because it was full. This year, it has already been closed 31 times. I know of many cases that have been referred to Bridgend, Llanelli and even Cardiff because the hospital at Neath cannot cope with the referrals to it. If that is the case now, reducing the hospital bed capacity by a further 100, as will happen when the new hospital replaces it, will be a disaster. It is a myth that there is over-capacity in West Glamorgan. For that reason, the model that the Welsh Office persuaded the Secretary of State to adopt is fundamentally flawed.

The majority of the consultants in West Glamorgan have taken a different view. They say that the model is flawed because it is inappropriate to manage medical emergencies without back-up surgical facilities. They therefore seek to centralise all emergencies, including medicine, on Morriston hospital and leave the new Neath hospital--and, indeed, increasingly the present one--responsible only for dealing with out- patients and day cases and perhaps some non-acute medical cases. The implication is that there will be no obstetrics or in-patient paediatric facilities.

We are victims of what is effectively a conspiracy--I use the term deliberately, although it is a serious charge to make--by Welsh Office officials, by the Royal College of Surgeons and by consultants, to undermine the facility at Neath and to turn a once proud hospital into a pale shadow of itself, because, if one does not provide emergency surgery, training for junior staff is inadequate. The university of Wales college of medicine allocates house officer posts. It is already signalling that it is unwilling to allocate house officer posts to Neath hospital on the basis of the existing deteriorating position, let alone the new model in the replacement hospital, in spite of the fact that Neath hospital has always had a very good reputation for training. Indeed, a recent survey placed it at the top of the list.

However, other hospitals are also in the market for house officer posts, so they are encouraging applicants, and indeed existing postholders, to withdraw from Neath and move to their own hospitals. The decision by the Royal College of Surgeons to withdraw training accreditation is making the position much worse.

I believe, and most--if not all--doctors in West Glamorgan would argue, that the model that the Secretary of State has proposed for the new hospital, which effectively is being put into practice from now on in anticipation, is fundamentally flawed, and that we should have a full range of emergency admissions, similar to that which exists, for example, at Llanelli hospital. Failure to do so has created a profound period of uncertainty, and many medical staff and other senior staff are voting with their feet. That has inevitably meant that a question mark hangs over the future of the hospital, and confidence has been destroyed.

Column 172

The problem has been compounded by the requirement that the Secretary of State has introduced, to seek private finance funds for the new hospital, which has meant further delay and uncertainty, although he has given assurances that nevertheless it will be built on time, for which we are grateful.

The management of the hospital has tried several innovative approaches to recruit staff, but they struggle against a lack of commitment by many local consultants to the model that the Secretary of State has specified and active attempts to destabilise the position by the surrounding trusts, which are benefiting from having work taken away from Neath and moved to their hospitals.

The internal market of competitive trusts is strangling Neath hospital. That is clearly shown by the fact that independent trusts nearby are competing with Neath, not co-operating as the Secretary of State has asked. They deliberately poach staff and seek to undermine, rather than co-operate with, Neath hospital.

A whispering campaign is going on to undermine the hospital. It is happening in a variety of ways. Accreditation of junior staff is being undermined. The withdrawal of pre-registration house officer posts is having a serious effect. Disinformation is being provided to potential applicants at a junior staff level about the pace of change and the future of the hospital. Consultant staff are also being poached by adjacent trusts.

Those elements are collectively resulting in a crisis at the hospital, of which the closure of the casualty unit is simply one aspect. As a result, many of the specialties of Neath hospital rely on locum consultants, as it has proved impossible to recruit permanent staff.

We had a meeting with the Secretary of State in January, and since then, there have been a series of extra vacancies in anaesthetics and surgery. There are now four vacancies out of six in anaesthetics, and three vacancies out of four in surgery. Four of those vacancies have resulted from poaching by Morriston or Singleton hospital trusts in the neighbouring region. We suffer from direct competition. In addition, there is one senior house office vacancy out of four in the accident and emergency unit, and house officers have threatened the withdrawal of all posts after August. That may be averted--the local management believe that that could be possible. If so, that will only be until next year, when emergency surgery is withdrawn almost completely. If that happens, there will be no casualty service--it will be closed not overnight, but permanently. I welcomed the recent statement by the Secretary of State, in which he committed himself to local hospital provision, stressed the importance of local access and expressed his concerns about the impact of centralisation. He has shown some courage in doing so, and I welcome that. However, in terms of the way in which the internal market operates, Neath hospital was cost-effective and had strong purchaser support. It has had a reputation for being responsive to the needs of local general practitioners and the public. It has been torn apart, not because it was unsuccessful, but because of Welsh Office dogma.

That dogma is not necessarily shared by the Secretary of State, but it is implemented by his officials, and at present he seems unwilling to resist it. That has led to a disaster for outlying villages up the valleys--in former

Column 173

mining villages such as Banwen, Glynneath and Tonmawr. Their residents now face journeys along the traffic-clogged M4 of up to half an hour to get to Morriston hospital, which has the nearest major accident and emergency and acute surgery provision. Any further traffic problems along that route could result in lives being put at risk, and many serious problems for outlying villages.

The position all depends on the environment in which the hospital now has to operate. In determining that some of the district general hospital services should transfer elsewhere, the Welsh Office has disrupted a well- established and effective pattern of services and replaced it with a model in which no one has confidence. Local medical staff, consultants, GPs, the local health authority and the local management have no confidence in it--I can find no one in my area or elsewhere who has confidence in it. The model is untested, and no one has confidence in the Secretary of State's proposal for the replacement hospital, prefigured in the way that Neath hospital is being run down.

It is not too late for the Secretary of State to act, which is why I am appealing to him in today's debate. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), will respond positively. I am seeking not to engage in a political knocking exercise, but to obtain the support of politicians and to persuade them to put themselves in charge of the Welsh Office, rather than leaving it to medical experts with fancy theories of centralisation that bear no resemblance to the need for local provision on the ground.

It is not too late for the Secretary of State to make a business case stating that the new hospital is based on retaining all the general hospital facilities. There is no evidence that the anticipated savings that some believe would come from the Secretary of State's proposals and the new model will be achieved. I would argue--I stand ready to be tested on it in future years--that the changes will cost more because, if cost-effective, small district general hospitals are replaced by high-cost, centralised, specialised facilities, they tend to ratchet up of costs. The provision will not be cheaper, but more expensive, and local people will suffer badly. Officials at the Welsh Office continue to agree to increasing capacity in hospitals near Neath. New theatres have been built at Singleton, and there is a phase 2 development at the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend. The Morriston hospital has recently been provided with a burns and plastics unit. All those developments have been taken place while Neath hospital has been run down.

All those hospitals have the potential to ensure that the proposed 250-bed hospital that will be sited on Baglan moor in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon is not viable. That will be particularly true if all the senior medical staff walk away from the hospital.

Civil servants at the Welsh Office seem hellbent on destroying what was once one of the most effective district general hospitals in Wales and replacing it with a new model of care which has yet to be tested anywhere in the United Kingdom, which has no local medical support and which has the potential to end up as an expensive cottage hospital, not the district general hospital that the Secretary of State promised my right hon. Friend and me in 1993.

Column 174

I have two specific requests for the Under- Secretary of State. First, will he ensure, and make a commitment this afternoon, that admissions for emergency surgery will be kept in the new hospital and at Neath hospital? Why should we be inferior to Llanelli hospital which has that provision? Will he reject the centralisation of facilities and emergency provision which is inherent in the existing position and which will accelerate as it deteriorates, so that everything will be concentrated at either Morriston or Singleton hospitals?

If the Secretary of State genuinely believes--I have no reason to doubt him --in local hospitals and community provision, it is essential for him to reject that centralisation. It would not affect the capital requirements in the project. If the concern is to obtain private capital, such a policy may be more attractive to those interested in providing private capital, because they will recognise a model that is more familiar and more cost- effective. My first request is for the Minister to reverse the process towards centralisation, and agree that the new hospital will retain all district general hospital emergency facility capabilities. Secondly, will the Minister instruct all the neighbouring trusts to support Neath general hospital? In the meeting which we had with him in January, the Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend and me that he was keen to discourage neighbouring trust hospitals from competing and undermining Neath, and that, on the contrary, they should support it. But there has been no letter from the Secretary of State's office to those trust hospitals to implement that wish.

I ask the Secretary of State to send such a letter. If he does not do so, local people will face a catastrophe--a hospital which they have valued for generations, which is much loved and which has provided a range of district general hospital facilities upon which they have grown to depend, will be swept away. In its place, we shall have a hospital on Baglan moor that is a pale shadow of its former self, because Neath hospital is being allowed to bleed to death. 1.18 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the current and future provision of accident and emergency services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot.

Accident and emergency facilities play an important role in the provision of health services to meet the needs of the public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to ensuring that both the current service at Neath general hospital and the future service at Baglan hospital will meet those needs. Contrary to recent media reports and to what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said, there is no conspiracy against Neath general hospital, although there are difficulties in achieving the outcome that we desire.

I thought that the hon. Member's attack on Welsh Office officials was quite disgraceful. He knows perfectly well that they are in no position to answer his outrageous charges against them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is not in full charge of the Welsh Office, he clearly does not know my right hon. Friend very well.

Column 175

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a whispering campaign designed to undermine the morale of Neath general hospital. Nothing is more likely to undermine the morale of the hospital's staff or the recruitment of future staff than his standing on the world stage and drawing attention to some of the difficulties that Neath general hospital currently faces.

Mr. Hain: That is an outrageous charge. I know what is going on in Neath general hospital. The Minister talks to his officials from on high; he does not know what is going on at Neath hospital. What I have said has nothing to do with accusations; I have presented the factually supported results of the Minister's policies. People are walking away from Neath hospital. The whispering campaign is being conducted not by politicians, but by his own Welsh Office officials and by consultants working in concert with them.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it leads me to my next remarks. I visited Neath general hospital on 16 February 1995 to see at first hand the excellent work that all involved at the hospital have achieved. I also talked to the local clinicians, and listened to their concerns.

I share the concerns expressed at the staffing difficulties that led recently to the temporary closure of the accident unit at Neath general hospital. I understand that efforts are being made to avoid further disruption, first through the appointment of a full-time locum consultant in the accident and emergency department in order to cover the maternity leave of the present consultant; and, secondly, by attempting to recruit accident and emergency senior house officers from a wider field, such as Germany. I think that the hon. Gentleman's comments about medical staff from overseas being employed at Neath general hospital are a bit rich, in view of the fact that he is an overseas Member of Parliament.

Should that exercise be unsuccessful, I understand that efforts will be made to identify other career-grade doctors who could be employed on a permanent basis. I am assured that five candidates have been shortlisted for anaesthetist positions at the hospital. That is an encouraging response, and interviews will be held shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined that everything shall be done to ensure that accident and emergency units in Wales--not just in Neath--avoid further temporary closures due to staffing problems. But the staffing problems are not particular to Neath or to Wales; they are being experienced in many parts of the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Neath on 28 March, summarising the urgent action that he has asked for in order to address the staffing problems. That aims to ensure that any short-term staffing difficulties in accident and emergency units are identified as soon as possible. It also seeks to ensure that effective measures are taken to reduce significantly the risk of disruption to patients.

Senior medical staff from the Welsh Office recently met accident and emergency experts in South Wales to identify the problems involved. They also agreed what needs to be done to ensure continuity of service in this

Column 176

essential area of care. I am told that the meeting identified a number of the more important factors which have made it difficult to recruit enough experienced staff to the casualty service. The meeting also proposed possible solutions to those difficulties. They include the employment of nurse practitioners, more career-grade appointments, and the rotation of medical posts to include a number of other accident and emergency departments. The co-operation that the hon. Member for Neath referred to, and specifically asked me to comment upon, is taking place already. I assure him that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority recently wrote to the chairmen of the three existing national health service trusts to emphasise the need for local cooperation.

More work will be required in order to build on that promising start, but I am hopeful that a satisfactory understanding can be reached between hospitals in South Wales as to how they can work together to minimise the risk of further disruption to those essential services.

In July 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his approval to West Glamorgan health authority proposals for improving health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. The plans included the provision of a 24-hour local accident unit at the new hospital at Baglan.

In giving his approval, my right hon. Friend recognised the need for the people of Neath and Port Talbot to have an appropriate local accident and emergency service. The new local accident unit will provide for the majority of cases currently cared for by the existing accident and emergency departments--including about 75 per cent. of all cases at Neath hospital--including simple fractures, and it will do so in state-of-the-art facilities.

It remains the view of my right hon. Friend and me, based on the best medical advice available to us, that seriously injured patients and those requiring more complex or high-risk emergency surgery should be treated in centres where full back-up services are available, including neurosurgery in the case of Morriston. It is centres such as those which have been shown to deliver the best results in terms of reducing the threat to life and avoiding permanent disability.

I have talked about accident and emergency services at Neath, and our commitment to providing appropriate local accident services at the new hospital at Baglan. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on progress with the new hospital as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the hon. Member for Neath, together with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), on 19 January 1995, and confirmed he his commitment to developing services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Neath has said today, we want to see services maintained at Neath general hospital while planning for the new Baglan hospital goes ahead.

I am aware that local medical opinion remains divided about the precise role of the new hospital. Concern has been expressed about the recruitment of medical staff for the new hospital, and the opportunities there will be for the training and development of such staff. When my right hon. Friend gave his approval to the new hospital, his three main criteria were: clinical safety, access to services for the local population, and value for money. Of those, the most important are clinical safety and access.

Column 177

A judgment was made that, in order to maximise access for the local population, the widest range of health services that could be safely delivered locally should be provided at Baglan. As well as the local accident unit, the new hospital will therefore offer out-patient clinics and the most up-to-date facilities to deal with non-emergency surgery, as well as acute general medicine, care of the elderly, rehabilitation services and facilities for people with acute mental illness.

When the decision was made, all of the local national health service interests were asked to work together to ensure that the new hospital was developed as quickly as possible, without disruption of services. It is therefore with disappointment that my right hon. Friend and I have observed the continuing public disagreements in West Glamorgan about the role of the new hospital. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by continuing that argument in the Chamber. I am sure that many--including, patients and local people--will see the disagreements as blocking the way to early progress with the development of Baglan.

At the end of the day, the Welsh Office can provide only the framework and funding, where needed, in order to improve local health services. The delivery of improved services depends entirely on local health professionals and managers putting aside any differences and working together to improve services for patients. Local people expect no less.

I was therefore encouraged to learn that the chairman of West Glamorgan health authority has invited the chairmen and chief executives of local NHS trusts to meet to agree what needs to be done in order to resolve local differences and how best to finalise the planning for the new hospital at Baglan. I very much welcome his initiative, and I have asked for a report on the outcome of the meeting.

From 1 April 1996, when the new West Glamorgan health authority is to be established, the area will be well served by four national health service trusts, which will provide high-quality patient care from four main district general hospitals. A full range of community care and health services will also be provided for many local hospitals and clinics throughout the area. The services in West Glamorgan will then comprise the regional burns and plastics centre, a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, a special care baby unit and a centrally funded treatment centre, in addition to acute and community services.

The trusts will employ a dedicated staff of around 10,000, including highly qualified clinicians and nurses. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the proposal to build a hospital at Baglan, he said that, if there was insufficient capacity there in terms of the number of beds, it would be looked at again, and the hon. Member for Neath knows that.

I hope that what I have said confirms the Department's determination to ensure that health services for the people of Neath and Port Talbot meet the high standards which the public rightly expects from today's NHS. I also emphasise--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Column 178

Grant-maintained schools

1.30 pm

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of grant-maintained schools, and I also wish to talk widely about funding. There is no doubt that the Government's reforms have given parents better choice and information about their children's education while raising standards significantly. Since 1979, spending per pupil has risen by 50 per cent. over inflation. We have also given schools the opportunity to become grant-maintained, which provides a form of choice within the state system.

There are three secondary schools in my constituency which have become grant-maintained--Belper, with approximately 1,000 pupils; Ecclesbourne, with approximately 1,300 pupils; and Lady Manners school at Bakewell, which has more than 1,400 pupils.

The head of Belper said that the school had benefited from enhanced funding because

"although we are linked to the Derbyshire formula the element of central costs can be spent specifically to meet our own needs. Independence enables us to manage our finances far more effectively because we have full control."

The head of Ecclesbourne said that the last four years

"have been the most professionally fulfilling of nearly two decades of headship. Not only have we been able to put right most of the physical deficiencies of the School's site and buildings, we have been able to assign a much higher proportion of what was our share of the resources allocated to Derbyshire for education to the business of teaching and learning."

The head of Lady Manners said:

"Independence, control of policies or developments and the direction of resources to achieve these priorities for the benefit of student counts among the major gains of GM status. So too the renewed enthusiasm of Governors and staff which flows from being able to plan with a realistic hope of delivery. Staff morale is greatly strengthened reflecting improved working conditions, extra ancillary support, more teachers . . . , hefty increase in spending on books and equipment and a major programme of redecoration".

Those are some of the genuine changes that the grant-maintained system has brought to state education, and I welcome them. However, I must acknowledge that not all schools wish to go down the route of becoming grant- maintained. That is something that I respect, although schools that have become grant-maintained have found enhanced freedoms.

I would like to bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention one of the problems for grant-maintained schools, which is the way in which the budgets for grant-maintained schools are set. I would like the Government to embark on a national funding formula for all schools--whether grant- maintained or not. At the moment, there are great variations as to what money is made available by LEAs to go into schools.

For example, in Hertfordshire the delegation is 91.3 per cent, while the delegation in Derbyshire is 85 per cent.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be an apologist for Derbyshire county council, he can apply for his own debate. There are problems in my constituency which are related to the fact that Derbyshire county council is holding back far too much finance.

Column 179

Derbyshire's overall schools budget represents spending of about £2,280 pounds per pupil--higher than 12 other counties--while the potential school budget represents £1,840 per pupil, which is higher only than Dorset, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire. The actual amount delegated to schools in Derbyshire is £1,560 per pupil--the second lowest of any county after Gloucestershire. The hold-back in Derbyshire amounts to some £720 per pupil which is spent by the LEA.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): My local council is about as bad as Derbyshire. For village schools, however, it is not only a question of funding. My county council has repeatedly attempted to close village schools, and was prevented from doing so only by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The county council is rumoured to be about to attempt again to close village schools. If those schools were to become grant-maintained, they would not only get better funding but be safe. Once a school has become grant-maintained, a county council cannot close it-- even if it wishes to do so.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend might also find that schools that become grant-maintained become far more attractive to parents. The schools would find their numbers going up, which would improve their position.

There are so many different ways in which people look at finance for education. One of my beliefs is that we desperately need a national funding formula. Of the amount withheld from its potential schools budget, Staffordshire spends £2,975,000 on management, or 1 per cent., to manage some 160,000 pupils. In Derbyshire, the figure is £3,787,000, or 1.6 per cent., to manage some 128,000 pupils. That £1 million is spent by the LEA and is not available to go to schools.

My point--as I have said before--is that one cannot spend money twice. If one is spending more money on administration, that money is not available to go into schools in the county. We need a national understanding of the way in which education finance is worked out. The differences between the potential schools budget and the aggregate schools budget create confusion. That has allowed county councils to receive money for education without putting that money directly into schools.

Some £720 per pupil was spent by Derbyshire LEA in addition to the amount delegated to each school, compared with £570 in

Nottinghamshire and £550 in Staffordshire. That is a difference of £150 per pupil, which makes a vast sum when we are talking about a primary school with 200 pupils--let alone what it amounts to in secondary schools. I urge my hon. Friend and the Government seriously to consider a national funding formula.

In 1994-95, the education standard spending assessment for Derbyshire rose by 2 per cent., but the county council cut it by 2 per cent. This year, the education SSA is to rise by 0.7 per cent., but schools are receiving cuts in their budgets. Cuts are coming at the sharp end, and the council has started to blame everyone but itself.

The power of local authority decisions to affect the funding of grant- maintained schools must be removed. The Minister and the Secretary of State have stated that local authorities have a right to set their own priorities,

Column 180

but the interests of pupils in the grant- maintained sector are not among the priorities of local education authorities which have done everything they possibly can to stop schools becoming

grant-maintained. More generally, protecting front-line services conflicts with a local authority's desire to protect its own powers of control and employees who want to carry out their instructions. The current funding formula goes some way towards improving the position of GM schools. It protects them from changes in the local management of schools formula, which can be manipulated to their disadvantage. However, it is subject to the removal of the top slice, which the LEA can plan to increase, leaving a reduced amount for front-line services. The link with LEA spending decisions contributes to unacceptable delays in receiving funding information.

My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been pursuing with the Funding Agency for Schools the difference between the amounts originally promised to GM schools and the actual grants. One explanation given by the agency is the discrepancy between estimated pupil numbers provided by schools and those provided by LEAs. If the agency cannot even get agreement on pupil numbers, that matter must be seriously addressed.

A national funding formula is the only way to ensure long-term accountability for decisions on school incomes and major items of expenditure. In return, a school can be expected to account to parents for proper management of the funds that it receives and to accept its share of responsibility. National funding should be distributed in an equitable, predictable and simple manner dissociated from historical and current spending issues, and be transparent.

Experience shows that it is sometimes unwise to make major changes without a pilot scheme. The grant-maintained sector should, and could, be used for a pilot, and then the scheme ought to be made available to every school in the country. In that way, the Government can ensure that the money that they set aside for education gets to front-line services. I do not mind taking the blame for decisions when I have responsibility for them, but not when I do not have any responsibility. Local education authorities are ensuring that money that should go to front-line services is used in other ways. We have never blinked or taken a backward step from radical approaches in education now endorsed by many hon. Members. Some of them have taken advantage of those changes--for example, by sending their children to schools that best meet their needs, even when that means crossing borders. Ten years ago, such choices were unknown, before the Bill for which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) had much responsibility, jointly with other Ministers. I do not want those excellent changes to be put at risk but want further changes to be made. I want the money designated for education to be used in schools, not in county halls. At the moment, there are too many ways in which funds can be diverted into the pet areas of chief education officers or education committee chairmen. The right way forward is a national funding formula for all schools. Until then, let us have a pilot scheme.

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider also making a minor change. When a county becomes part of a common funding formula, why not announce that all primary and secondary schools in that county will be part of that formula? Let us do away with the differential

Column 181

between primary and secondary schools. That would be a small start, but a small start in a major direction--and one of major significance to our state education system.

1.44 pm

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for allowing me to speak in this timely debate. He kindly mentioned my role in the enactment of the Education Reform Act 1988, which gave powers and opportunities to schools to opt out of local authority control if that was the wish of parents expressed in a ballot. I am delighted that, in my constituency, nine schools have become grant- maintained since 1988. Together with the city technology college, they offer choice and variety second to none in any other part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may point out gently to the House and to the people of Dartford that the range of schools in north-west Kent exists not because of spontaneous combustion or divine intervention but because of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979. It is an indisputable fact that Labour would end that choice. Despite all the efforts of the spin doctors and soundbite merchants who currently dominate the Labour party, it would take away grant-maintained status, close grammar schools, CTCs and high schools and require all schools in Dartford to become comprehensives for 11 to 16-year-olds. Of that there is no doubt.

One message that came out of Blackpool over the last few days from the National Union of Teachers conference--apart from showing a trade union out of control--was that the union expected a Labour Government to return the 1,050 opted-out schools to local authority control, despite the wishes of parents, expressed in the democratic process, for those schools to opt out.

Gravesend grammar school for boys, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) but to which many parents in my constituency send their children, recently voted by a 70 per cent. majority to become grant-maintained. Parents from Hartley, Fawkham, Ash-cum-Ridley, Longfield, New Barn and Southfleet voted with others from Gravesend to that effect. Of significance was the success of that vote, despite the best endeavours of the county council, and the fact that the campaign was led, motivated and supported by the chairman of governors, Mr. Eric Hammond--who I suspect has more to do with Labour Members than with the Conservative party. That campaign was successful because parents had seen the value and benefit of grant-maintained status.

Sixty thousand children in Kent are currently educated in grant-maintained schools. A vote for Labour in the forthcoming local elections would be a vote to end that situation. It would be a vote against grammar schools, CTCs and high schools, and a vote against local freedom for local schools in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire described.

Only the Conservative party, believing in Conservative policies, would ensure the continuation of the current position. I advise the people of Dartford to think carefully before they vote on 4 May. A vote for Labour is a vote to end range, variety and freedom of choice. The grant-maintained policy was one of the best that this Government have ever introduced. More and more schools and parents will see that as time goes on. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech.

Column 182

1.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The House has been privileged to hear powerful and well- informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), a former Education Minister who speaks with great authority on these matters. I confess that the subject of grant-maintained schools is one close to my heart, and it allowed my hon. Friends to refer to several other aspects of funding and related issues. In the time available, I shall seek to respond to the points made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire.

Perhaps the obvious starting point on funding is to confirm that Derbyshire county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its own priorities between and within services. It is the council that has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much on other services. As we are all aware, there are wide variations between and within authorities, because local management of schools schemes devote additional funding to schools with high levels of need. It is important to put on record yet again the fact that the Government and Ministers are not seeking to pass the buck. Our role is clear in funding local authority services. We set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally. We determine the way in which national standard spending totals are distributed between local authorities through the standard spending assessment system.

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, over the past five years, Derbyshire's SSA has increased by over 23 per cent., which has been well above the rate of inflation. As he knows, the SSA is scheduled to increase during the current year, 1995-96. The capping rules allow Derbyshire to spend more than the council did in 1994-95. In total, Derbyshire is able to spend about £550 million on all its services. That is a significant sum.

My hon. Friend drew attention to some funding per pupil comparisons with other authorities. He mentioned Hertfordshire and Staffordshire. I shall not bedevil the debate with a mass of statistics, but it is important that I take up a couple of central issues, not least because I know from the correspondence that the Department receives that there is some misunderstanding when it comes to funding per pupil comparisons.

The SSA system does not set out to allow the same level of spending for each pupil. Indeed, it should not do so. The aim is to provide for funding for a common standard of service throughout the country, taking account of the fact that the costs of providing education inevitably vary from local education authority to local education authority. Need varies from one council to another and so, therefore, does poundage for pupil as implied in each authority's SSA. The SSAs reflect the additional costs of educating children in sparsely populated areas, for example. They take account of socio-economic disadvantage, high proportions of non-English-speaking children and higher labour and other costs through what is known in the trade as the area cost adjustment. As my hon. Friend knows, the ACA is fairly controversial. Very few local authorities, whether they are recipients of the ACA or non-recipients, agree on its calculation. However, no local authority

Next Section

  Home Page