| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Hampson: It is certainly true that we need to monitor the scheme, but as the hon. Gentleman has gone on endlessly about the need for resources, does he accept another critical factor in the argument? I refer to the style, nature and quality of the teaching--not just resources. The education editor of The Guardian congratulated Leeds on the extra resources that it is pouring into inner-city schools, but then added that the standards of reading "actually fell". The hon. Member for Leeds, Central(Mr. Fatchett), a former education spokesman, was reported as commenting:
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The hon. Gentleman should understand that that is why the Labour party emphasises standards. It is why we talk about reducing class sizes, and why we do not accept the Government's loose approach to the accreditation of centres and the qualifications of the staff in them under this scheme.
The ostensible purpose of clause 6 is to allow GM schools borrowing facilities for capital purposes comparable with those of LEAs. This is a chimera, for the simple reason that LEAs have to borrow through the Government against the public sector borrowing requirement, subject to heavy restrictions. Meanwhile, GM schools have had preferential capital grants from the Government far in excess of those available to other maintained schools--two and a half times as much, in fact.
Secondly, provision under the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from the other element outlined in the consultation paper: allowing GM schools to retain 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. Admittedly, taken together, the two elements might seem an attractive package not just to GM schools--particularly those on split sites--but to potential converts to the Government's failed drive to increase their number, but according to The Times Educational Supplement of last Friday, GM schools are, wisely, reluctant borrowers. Eighty per cent. of those surveyed by the TES refused to borrow on the open market. The Government failed to heed the warnings of their own consultation, to which only one in 20 GM schools even bothered to reply. The reasons for that varied, but the unease was uniform. Alan Crampton of Audenshaw high said:
Nigel Powis of St. Andrews, Weeley, in Essex, said:
John Bennett of Marshland high, West Walton, Cambridgeshire said:
Paul Beashel of the Deanes school, Benfleet, in Essex wrote:
even though the school has just received £200,000 from the lottery for facilities that should have been provided by the DFEE. And Geoff Mason of the Maelor school in Clwyd said:
So who will take up the new opportunity under the aegis of the Funding Agency for Schools? No one, if the National Association of Governors and Managers is to be believed. In its view:
More to the point, perhaps, the FAS--a quango packed with Tory placemen and women, has neither the efficiency nor the regard for public money necessary to exercise such a function. That was aptly demonstrated by Lord Justice Evans on 6 October last, when the FAS took itself to the Appeal Court and the appeal was thrown out. He said of the FAS:
It could not reach a decision quickly enough to satisfy even the court, and we know how quickly the courts operate under this Government.
Lord Justice Evans went on to comment:
The judge has the agency well weighed up.
Nor has true account been taken of the role of trustees, especially in GM Church schools. Many GM schools will be prevented from borrowing by the veto of the trustees. The Churches are afraid of the consequences for them if borrowing is to be a substitute for Government capital funding of their schools. Where does that leave us? The merchant banks do not want to know because the projects are too small. The clearing banks might want to know, but they will be cautious in the new market. Financiers are more interested in revenue than in assets, so why should they trust inexperienced schools with only dedicated education funding and little or no surplus?
The truth is that the Government set out three options in a handbook--joint ventures to develop school-community facilities; land swaps, with new build for land owned by a school; and new schools at sites alongside housing developments. Only the first option seems likely for most grant-maintained schools. After all, the facility will be limited to non-core assets and the Prime Minister has made a heck of a fuss about games, which precludes the wholesale disposal of playing fields.
We must not forget the vexed area of local education authority interest. Why should the rest of the local community ultimately pick up the tab for a charge on an asset, the receipts for which go 100 per cent. to a grant-maintained school? As one response to the Government's consultation said:
I misheard for a moment and thought that that response came from a socialist education association; it was actually a Conservative education association response. Its vice-president is the hon. Member for Saffron Walden(Sir A. Haselhurst) and its patrons include the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). This Bill does absolutely nothing for nursery provision; it subsidises the private sector. It brings further division between LEAs and GM schools. In fact, it even divides GM schools on the basis of those that have disposable assets and those that do not--and that is a matter of historical accident anyway. The Bill is predicated not on educational need, but on ideological prejudice, as the Prime Minister and his faithful Secretary of State seek to appease the hard right of the Tory party.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire):
This has been an enjoyable debate with some powerful contributions from both sides of the Chamber, with a few myths being spread that I intend to dispel. At the end came a speech of pure fantasy from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and I shall deal with some elements during my speech. First, I want to deal with the few common points in the debate--
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
My hon. Friend referred to a speech of pure fantasy from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). The hon. Gentleman claimed that no new nursery units had been provided in Kent for 18 years. I have to tell him that every one of the numerous nursery units in my constituency was provided by a Conservative county council. By contrast, under the Lib-Lab county council no new units have been provided--other than that provided by a grant-maintained school.
Mr. Squire:
I am delighted that I gave way to myhon. Friend, who had great difficulty getting in earlier.
Mr. Dunn:
My hon. Friend will recall that earlier the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was asked many times about the statement in the Sheffield Star on 21 November, which reported him as saying:
We wondered why he would not answer any questions--now we know that his statement and beliefs are a direct criticism not just of the hon. Member for Peckham(Ms Harman), but of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Squire:
My hon. Friend has touched a raw nerve on the Opposition Benches, and we could all see that as we watched the debate this afternoon.
What has linked the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)--my old foe in a pleasant sense--and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and
Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has been a broad welcome to the expansion of quality nursery education, because what it is about, notwithstanding the earlier contribution of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who disagrees with the definition, is the expansion across the country not just in local authority provision but in the voluntary sector and, indeed, the private sector.
There will be quality controls, which we have set out. We have accepted in full the recommendations of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority covering the quality outcomes--the desirable learning outcomes--that we would expect four-year-olds to reach. I had hoped that there would be broad agreement for that and for the way in which it should, would and must lead into key stage 1. We cannot be complacent about the quality of education being delivered to four-year-olds, looking at the entire country. We need to raise standards, and the sooner we start, the better. The Bill sets out our suggestion as to the way in which that should be done.
"Leeds is to be congratulated on publishing a report that is critical".
"I am uneasy about mortgaging the school for another head to pick up the bill!"
"At the end of this year, I'll have about 300 pounds left, and you can't borrow against that."
"It puts a desperate need for money back on to schools for things that are really a landlord's responsibility".
22 Jan 1996 : Column 107
"We just don't want to take on any debts"--
"There is not sufficient surplus to envisage being able to make the repayments."
"The association does not believe that the FAS, who will approve borrowing proposals on behalf of the Secretary of State, can acquire the necessary educational expertise."
"There is no evidence why the Agency could not reach its decision in time".
"It is regrettable that . . . the Funding Agency has not taken account of the Judge's observations . . . regarding the waste of public money."
"Any moves to change the funding basis of GM schools, either capital or revenue, should be within a framework that ensures a level playing field for all schools. We see no case for GM schools to be funded more advantageously than LEA maintained schools."
22 Jan 1996 : Column 108
"I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |