| Home Page |
Column 691
House of Commons
Tuesday 23 May 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
NEW WRIT
For North Down, in the room of Sir James Kilfedder, deceased.--[ Mr. Kirkhope. ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Malvern Hills Bill
[Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION
Nursery Schools
1. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of three to five-year-olds have pre-school places in publicly funded schools or nursery schools in (a) Great Britain and (b) France. [23809]
The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In 1992 all three to five-year-olds in France attended some form of schooling, including private, compared with 68 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Of the other European Union member states, only Belgium, Italy and Spain have a higher percentage attendance than the United Kingdom.
Mr. MacShane: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I hope that she will take this opportunity to deny the report in yesterday's Daily Mail that she plans to introduce a crazy right-wing voucher scheme which will create kiddies farms for middle-class parents. I know that she loves France as much as I do and my more serious point is, why three to five-year -olds in France get a better deal from their Government than my three to five-year-olds get from theirs. I speak as one with two children under that age.
Mrs. Shephard: I note that the hon. Gentleman prepared his indignation in advance. Nine out of 10 three and four-year-olds in this country have some form of pre-school education. Just over half attend nursery schools or nursery reception classes in primary schools; and 41 per cent. are registered with a play group. The hon. Gentleman spoke about assertions in the Daily Mail . I remind him that we have made it clear that in due course we shall announce our proposals for new places with new
Column 692
money for children under five. When we make that announcement the mechanisms by which those places will be provided will become clear.Sir David Madel: As local education authorities steadily expand nursery school provision, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Pre- school Playgroups Organisation also plays a vital role in preparing children for compulsory years at school?
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. Our announcement will make it clear that we are promoting good quality, and choice and diversity for parents. Our objective is most specifically not to put private or voluntary providers out of business.
Mr. Don Foster: Further to the Secretary of State's response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) may I ask her to tell the House a bit more precisely when she is likely to make her announcement about the expansion of nursery education? Does she agree that a voucher system would not provide the necessary resources for places for children in terms of physical facilities, or the training for the high-quality teachers needed for high-quality nursery education?
Mrs. Shephard: I say again that we shall make the announcement when the policies are ready. The delivery mechanisms will be part of that announcement. I have already said this afternoon--and on many other occasions--that our plans will promote good quality and choice and diversity; obviously good quality includes the right qualifications and training.
Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of nursery places for all four-year-olds provides the Government with an excellent opportunity to do something popular--to provide vouchers to parents and thereby give them more choice? Will she take this opportunity to say that she does have sympathy with the article in the Daily Mail ; and that she will not adopt the sort of hotchpotch compromise trailed in some newspapers, or the sort of scheme that the DFE has some expertise in creating?
Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. The delivery mechanisms, including vouchers, bidding systems and so on, are part of the policy considerations that we are currently looking at. Nothing has been ruled in and nothing ruled out.
Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the Secretary of State recall the Chief Secretary's speech on nursery vouchers to the Centre for Policy Studies on 15 March, when he described himself as a
"heavy handed Chief Secretary pre-empting the proper process of Government decision making"?
In view of yesterday's Daily Mail article, will she tell the House who determines education policy for the Government--the Secretary of State or the Chief Secretary?
Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the editor and proprietor of the Daily Mail will be enchanted to know that the paper's every word is so carefully perused by Opposition Members.
As for the Chief Secretary's words at the seminar, I am not sure that I recall them too clearly, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I and my team of Ministers are in charge of education policy.
Column 693
Stamford Endowed Schools
2. Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on future access to the Stamford endowed schools. [23810]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I understand that Lincolnshire county council is consultinon a proposal to phase out its scholarship scheme for 25 boys and 25 girls to attend the two Stamford endowed schools.
Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that these county scholarships, which have enabled children who qualify academically in Stamford to go to the Stamford school and the high school--both excellent schools-- irrespective of their parents' means, have been a priceless educational asset to generations of Stamford children? Is he further aware that the only reasons why the county council is planning to abolish the scholarship scheme are ideological prejudice and sheer malice? [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of Opposition Front Benchers, who are shouting now, is contemptible? They take advantage of educational choice for their own children in London, yet when they come to power with their Liberal poodles in Lincolnshire they try to destroy parental choice there.
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has touched on a sensitive point with Opposition Members. I am sure that he is right about the many boys and girls in Lincolnshire who have benefited in past years, but I am afraid that this is a matter for Lincolnshire county council alone to determine. My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction, provided that there are sufficient other places for school pupils in the area. I note, however, that the headmaster of Stamford school has described the proposal as social and educational vandalism.
Grant-maintained Schools
3. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in the south-east. [23811]
Mr. Robin Squire: There are 300 grant-maintained schools in London and south-east England, including nearly half the maintained secondary schools in the region.
Mr. Waterson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is not a single grant-maintained school in east Sussex? Does he agree that that is a great shame; and will he undertake, with his ministerial colleagues, to do everything in his power to communicate to parents, governors and teachers the tangible benefits of GM status?
Mr. Squire: I willingly give an assurance to my hon. Friend in answer to his question. He will recognise that the growth of grant- maintained schools is determined by parental ballots and I am afraid that only three out of about 250 governing bodies have so far consulted parents by such a ballot. None is yet benefiting from the improvements that grant- maintained status brings. I have some good news for my hon. Friend. Earlier this year I
Column 694
approved the first grant-maintained school in west Sussex and I strongly suspect that its good influence will waft across the border in the very near future.Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister will recall that there is only one grant-maintained school in the London borough of Newham--Stratford school, which has been judged to be failing. The Secretary of State has now sacked the chairman of governors and the governors and put her own people in. When will the Minister be prepared to sit down with the local education authority to discuss the educational welfare of the children at Stratford school, or is he going to continue, for party political purposes, to throw money at Stratford school, despite the fact that it is failing and will continue to fail?
Mr. Squire: First, I must clarify something that the hon. Gentleman said. The former chairman of governors resigned; he was not sacked. On the more substantial point, I trust that the hon. Gentleman shares our wish to see education improve in that school. It is recognised that it is not at the level that it should be and the Government, through the newly appointed governors, are taking steps to ensure that standards will improve at that school, which will benefit all pupils there now and, indeed, in the future.
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend knows that as a result of the Government's policy, Kent county has a very wide range of choice of schools, including excellent grant-maintained schools. He also knows that those schools are staffed by excellent and dedicated teaching staff. Is it not right that those teachers should be paid properly and is it not a disgrace that the Labour and Liberal administration that runs Kent county council is refusing to pay them to score party political points while knowing that it has the money to do so?
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I note that other of our hon. Friends from Kent have made similar comments recently in the House. If it is true, that through mismanagement, Kent has discovered that it has significant sums with which it could have fully funded the teachers' pay rise, it is very important that all the people of Kent know exactly where the finger of guilt should be pointed, and that is certainly at Kent LEA.
Special Needs
4. Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she plans to review the resources available for education for children with special needs. [23812]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The special educational needs code of practice, which came into effect in September 1994, will encourage schools to make more effective use of their budgets for pupils with those needs. How each local education authority determines its priorities is a matter for the authority concerned.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the special educational needs tribunal has heard only about 50 of the 500 appeals before it and will she ensure that the tribunal has sufficient resources to clear the backlog? Further, while Opposition Members welcome the code of practice, we recognise that resources are needed for it to be put into place.
Column 695
Is the Secretary of State aware that many local authorities are not meeting the six months timetable for statementing because of the shortage of educational psychologists? Will she make the resources available to ensure that that can be rectified and provide additional resources in 1996-97 for the additional training that will be needed for special educational needs co-ordinators?Mrs. Shephard: Local education authorities have a duty to provide for the education of statemented pupils. They should provide additional weighting for pupils with special needs. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that an Audit Commission survey in 1992 found that two thirds of head teachers did not know how much was in their budgets for special educational needs, hence the need for greater transparency was made mandatory under the code. I certainly agree that the work of tribunals has some backlog at the moment, partly because this is a new system.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned training. He should know that GEST, the grant for education, support and training, amounts to £27.8 million this year, an increase of £4 million on last year, and makes provision to support training for educational psychologists, among other things.
Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the unacceptable delays that have occurred in the past in respect of some appeals to her Department. Will she tell me and the House how long it will take the SEN tribunal to deal with the case that I am about to put to it which involves a very bright child who does not have a school to go to in September?
Mrs. Shephard: In that case, I should hope that the tribunal would deal with the matter with all dispatch. It is clearly urgent.
Vandalism
5. Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the level of vandalism in schools. [23813]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The Department for Education survey of security in schools shows that vandalism accounts for 80 per cent. of the incidents of school crime.
Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that there is a serious plague of vandalism in the city of Leicester, with no fewer than 796 incidents in my constituency alone in the past financial year? Is he aware of my very useful and constructive conversation with the Secretary of State and her promise to come to Leicester to see the results of that vandalism and talk to the people on the ground? Will she be kind enough to let us know when we are likely to have the pleasure of welcoming her and whether the Department has done anything about helping schools to cope with vandalism since our conversation?
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend hopes to visit very soon. When she does, I hope that she will learn from the schools affected and from the local education authority about the measures that they are taking within their remit to ensure that this serious problem is tackled. There are many possibilities open to schools and local authorities. For example, GEST funding and supplementary credit approvals may be given, single regeneration budget
Column 696
money may be made available and closed circuit television is proving to be very successful in reducing vandalism to zero where it was previously often pernicious. I hope that local people will describe to my right hon. Friend what they are doing to tackle this difficult problem.Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend consider it a quite extraordinary act of vandalism that the school budgets in Kent should have been shortchanged by £3.8 million by the Liberal county council-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to that on the Order Paper, which is not concerned with finance. The hon. Gentleman had the chance to raise that earlier.
Mr. Arnold: Is not it a remarkable bit of vandalism that, although there is a surplus of £17 million, our schools are shortchanged?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused the procedure. I hope that the Minister will answer according to the original question and not as widened by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: That echoes the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who referred to the latest act of socialist vandalism by his LEA. It seems to be an increasing but regrettable feature of some local education authorities.
Mr. Barry Jones rose --
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) can make a better stab at it.
Mr. Jones: Is not there a link between rampant vandalism and 16 years of Conservative Government?
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that that is known as a quid pro quo, and the Minister is not answering.
Standard Spending Assessment
6. Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to change the present education standard spending assessment formula. [23814]
Mr. Robin Squire: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration is reviewing the area cost adjustment. We also keep under review the education factors in the standard spending assessment methodology. Before making any changes, we will take careful account of the views of the local authority associations.
Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for responding positively to the representations that I and my Dorset colleagues made to him recently about the adverse comparisons between neighbouring LEAs. Will any new LEA funding formulas be more transparent and demonstrate to governors and parents that they reflect fairly the actual costs of providing education in our schools?
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend refers to the alluring prospect of some simple formula involving a sum per pupil. In practice, there would always have to be some way of allowing for the inevitably higher costs of educating pupils in certain circumstances and areas. As
Column 697
the House will be aware, we are looking at the possibility of a national funding formula, but I would not want to mislead the House by suggesting that it is imminent. Significant practical difficulties have to be overcome.Mr. William O'Brien: When considering a review of the education SSAs, will the Minister take into consideration the need to provide more resources to make available a general educational facility for nursery schools? When adjusting the SSAs, will he also take into consideration consultation with parent and teacher organisations?
Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SSA is ultimately simply a distribution mechanism. The total size of the budget is determined in discussion with other Government colleagues. If the hon. Gentleman is adding his name and suggestion to the growing list of Labour commitments, we would simply note it.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread support, especially at school level, for the prospect of a re- think of the way in which we fund our schools and that there is overwhelming evidence that needs-led funding requires active consideration? Is he also aware that the Select Committee on Education has done some work on that subject and has produced a report, which would not be a blueprint but would nevertheless add to the debate on the possibilities of a national funding formula and which I commend to him?
Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education is so good, sound and gives us many practical suggestions, as indeed, is the work of the Select Committee as a whole. From his position, he will know how true were my earlier comments about the difficulties that attend such a change.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Even if it were conceivable that the Government were to move swiftly to change the formula, how soon would they be able to repair the damage done to the fabric of our education system this year? The National Association of Head Teachers has pointed out that already more than 2,500 teachers' jobs have gone, £300 million has been stripped from schools' budgets and the Government's depredation, to refer to an earlier question, has been much more damaging than that which any vandals could do.
Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the rising standards in our schools, which is the key point of education. He also makes no reference to the significantly increased sums of capital build in the forthcoming year. If he is suggesting that he would spend significantly greater sums were his party in government, let him come up with a figure, say what it is and get the approval of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), then we will start to take his criticism seriously.
Grant-maintained Schools
7. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in the north-west. [23815]
Mr. Robin Squire: There are currently 84 grant-maintained schools in the north-west of England.
Mr. Thurnham: When we next have a ballot in the north-west, will my hon. Friend address parents on the
Column 698
very great benefits of grant-maintained schools and invite the Leader of the Opposition to join him on the platform so that the right hon. Gentleman can condemn all the rubbish put out by the Labour party in the north-west?Mr. Squire: I sense that if I were to go to a school and speak about the undoubted benefits of GM status during a ballot, I might find subsequently a small problem or two, vis-a -vis legal advice. The serious point that my hon. Friend makes is worth making. It is not that we even know the Opposition policy on opt-out schools. In this month alone, we have been asked to choose between the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who says that he is in favour of opt-out schools but says nothing specific, and those of the shadow spokesman for Wales, who has said that all the Labour party members in Wales are totally against opt -out schools. Which one speaks for the Labour party?
Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that the majority of parents in Lancashire and the north-west do not want GM schools? All they want are schools provided by the local education authority which have sufficient funding to provide the right quality and standard of education for our children.
Mr. Squire: As my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) indicated, significant numbers of parents want grant-maintained schools in the north-west. They are enjoying them, and they would enjoy even more of them if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were not so innately opposed to them.
Mr. Dover: Does the Minister acknowledge that the
Labour-controlled county council in Lancashire has transformed a 1 per cent. real increase in last November's budget into a 5.5 per cent. cut in the county? Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to get real increased cash resources to schools is to have a much wider provision of grant-maintained schools?
Mr. Squire: Undoubtedly, one of the many benefits of grant- maintained status is that by devolving control of all the budget to the school governors, one gets better value for money and less need for bureaucracy in town or county hall. My hon. Friend is right.
Capping
8. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the effects of capping on schools. [23816]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The capping limits allow all local education authorities to increase their budgets. They have discretion over funding for their schools within the level of their cap.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what recommendations she will make to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment regarding Devon's cap, following the meeting between the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, myself and a delegation from Devon county council? Will she tell the House whether she agrees with Tory Members in the south-west, such as the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam)--and even the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)--who believe that caps should be raised, or
Column 699
whether she agrees with those Conservative Members in Devon who are fully committed to lowering standards in local schools by keeping the caps in place?Mrs. Shephard: I am well aware that Conservative county councillors in Devon gave an additional £4.4 million to the education service in their draft budget, within the cap. We are at present considering the appeals submitted by capped authorities and we shall take decisions in the light of available information.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Devon three times turned down the Conservative budget which provided the money that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) accused us of not giving? Does my right hon. Friend also realise that the local education authority takes 28 per cent. of the standard spending assessment to run its headquarters operation? That money could go to the local schools if Devon was not so vociferous about the way in which it wishes to spend money.
Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. He and some of my other hon. Friends representing constituencies in Devon have frequently made such points. Devon receives more per pupil in its education SSA than 35 other local education authorities.
Assisted Places
10. Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have an assisted place at a private school. [23819]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Almost 29,800 children hold
Government-assisted places in independent schools in England in the current year. In addition, other children are supported in independent schools by local education authorities.
Mr. Martin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the assisted places scheme is popular with parents because of its educational value and the opportunities provided, not least by places given to pupils in Portsmouth? Will she take every opportunity to point out the fact that the vindictive educational vandals on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches would abolish the assisted places scheme if the British people were ever foolish enough to elect a Labour Government?
Mrs. Shephard: The assisted places scheme has helped more than 70, 000 children since its inception. It is a success and it is popular. The Government believe in encouraging choice and diversity in education, a policy consistently opposed by the Opposition who, if they have a position on the matter, seem to believe that they can exercise as parents choices that they vote to deny to others.
Mr. O'Hara: Is not the assisted places scheme more to do with propping up a foundering private system than with the opportunities it gives to the children whom it is draining from the state system, together with resources? Is not it a fact that the value that is vaunted for the assisted places scheme is certainly not borne out by the examination results achieved by the children involved?
Mrs. Shephard: Oh, how wrong the hon. Gentleman is. The assisted places scheme is about the extension of
Column 700
choice and about excellent examination results. Assisted places scheme pupils in 1994 had pass rates of more than 90 per cent. in both GCSE and A-levels. The scheme also encourages a high stay-on rate. It is an investment in opportunity which the Opposition would lose no time in abolishing.Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given that the incomes of 60 per cent. of the parents of children with assisted places are less than the national average and that the head of the headmasters conference said that the cost to the Exchequer of the assisted places scheme was less than the average for a state school, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's opposition to the assisted places scheme is based not on logic or on good education but purely on ideology and envy?
Mrs. Shephard: Given that the aim of the scheme is to widen the choice of able children from less well-off families, one would have hoped that Opposition Members would support it. Their attitudes are to do with class envy, as my hon. Friend remarks.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the money devoted to the assisted places scheme were devoted to the state sector, 5,000 additional teachers could be employed to assist in reducing the class sizes which she seems determined to drive up?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that pupils transfer with their funding, which is unfortunate given that he occupies a place on the Opposition Front Bench. It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that his party intends to abolish the scheme in the unlikely event of the Labour party ever attaining power.
Parental Choice
11. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the contribution of choice and diversity to the quality of education and the contribution of grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools to parental choice and the quality of education. [23820]
Mr. Robin Squire: The exercise of informed parental choice has a key role to play in raising standards. Grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and specialist colleges mean greater diversity in the kinds of schools to which parents can apply, and high- quality education to large numbers of pupils.
Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the nation's parents want greater freedom of choice and diversity in education? [Laughter.] Does he further agree that Opposition Members --who are currently laughing about education and do not see it as an important matter, as we do--would abolish grant-maintained schools, grammar schools and the assisted places scheme, all of which are in demand by parents? Would not the cost of abolishing those schemes come from the scarce resources in the education budget? Would that not represent a total waste?
Mr. Squire: Not only is my hon. Friend right but, unusually, he understates. We can see from the answer to a previous question that a further group of schools will be threatened should the lot opposite come to power. The
Column 701
Government want all schools to develop their own identity, while the Opposition are motivated more by dogma and are prepared to attack excellent schools in the name of that dogma.
| Next Section
| Home Page |