| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on an extremely important issue. It was useful to hear the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I am only sad that there are not more hon. Members on the Opposition Benches--I always thought that education was at the top of their agenda.
The hon. Member for Bath made a number of different points in his characteristically direct way. The common theme that ran through them was that problems are the
Government's responsibility--local authorities, schools, colleges and universities have been starved of the resources that they have sought to put matters right; the world would be rosy if only more money were available; and the taxpayer's pocket has, yet again, to be the source of that money.
I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman with a few plain facts. It might be hard for him to admit this, but the truth is that, during this decade, substantial sums have been directed towards improving and renewing educational buildings. For 1996-97, we have announced record levels of support for capital programmes--just short of£700 million. Add to that the substantial support that we announced for the previous two years and one arrives at centrally available support totalling just short of £2 billion over the three-year period.
The hon. Member for Bath should note that allocations for basic and exceptional basic need are much higher for 1996-97 than they have been in recent years--£6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995-96. That central support is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a limit of any kind on spending on school buildings. Local education authorities can, and do, add substantially to the sums available through grants and borrowing approvals by investing capital receipts and funds from their revenue budgets.
We have made it easier for LEAs to do that in a number of ways. For example, for the two years from April 1996, they will be required to set aside only 25 per cent. of proceeds from the sale of surplus assets for debt redemption, as opposed to 50 per cent. as at present. That will mean that more money still will be available for new capital projects. As a result, we estimate that, since 1990, more than £5 billion has been spent on county, voluntary-aided and grant-maintained school buildings.
The hon. Gentleman quoted some historic figures on capital spending. I say "historic" because he had to go back 20 years to find figures that came remotely near to meeting his case. Of course capital spending was higher in 1974. At that time, pupil numbers were much greater and were rising so rapidly that new buildings were needed to accommodate them. A closer look would reveal that history tells a rather different story about what happened next.
Between 1974 and 1979, capital spending on schools fell to less than half the present figure in real terms--and we all remember who were sitting on this side of the Chamber between 1974 and 1979. By contrast, since the Conservatives came to office in 1979, capital spending on schools has increased by some 15 per cent. over and above inflation.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. I scarcely need to add, "selectively". It is perfectly true that the report notes that a minority of secondary schools and a rather smaller minority of primary schools suffer from "some shortfall in accommodation", but it notes also the efforts that have been made--they will continue to be made--to deal with the more serious problems. As the chief inspector states,
It is, yet again, the same message--making the best possible use of the available resources is what counts.
In the further education sector, capital funding has risen from £151.8 million in 1993-94 to £159 million in 1995-96. Capital spending, moreover, has shot up since incorporation. Many further education colleges, using their own initiative, have taken advantage of their new independence to raise private finance. To date,FE institutions have raised more than £100 million.
Higher education has, quite rightly, been one of the fastest-growing programmes in recent years. Universities have invested significant sums in their capital assets. The present aggregate level of borrowing amounts to more than £1.5 billion.
The hon. Member for Bath expressed some anxiety about outside lavatories in some of our oldest school buildings. I remind him of something that I am sure he already knows--that it is for local authorities and school governors to set their priorities for capital work on the school buildings for which they are responsible. I do not decide which work proceeds and which does not in local authority schools--LEAs and governors do. The hon. Gentleman should not ask me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about why some work has been done while other work has not. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there are still schools where children have no choice but to use outside toilets, he should speak to his friends in local education authorities. They should be able to give him an answer.
In the case of county or controlled schools, it is up to the LEA that maintains them to decide how high a priority to give such work. If the schools are voluntary aided, such work would be classed as minor, to be paid for from the formula allocation administered by the local education authority. I see that that comes as a great surprise to the Liberal Democrat education spokesman. Minor works and improvement/replacement formulae, and other funding sources--including receipts--have been available to LEAs for some years and it has been open to them to use those sources to meet their priorities. The hon. Member for Bath should ask his friends in local authorities what scope they have for efficiency savings. The hon.
Gentleman should ask also what efforts have been made to address the efficiency savings identified by the Audit Commission.
The Government want to encourage a more imaginative approach to capital funding in schools. That is one reason for my announcement in December that we shall set up the schools renewal challenge fund; we want to encourage better and more prudent use of capital assets. The fund, which will operate for the financial year 1996-97, will assign resources on a competitive basis for the renewal, repair, replacement or improvement of school capital stock. Account will be taken of the urgency of the project, which should provide value for money while levering in an additional element of resources from non-Government sources, particularly through the private finance initiative--which the hon. Gentleman chose to rubbish, without having a great depth of knowledge of the initiative's extent and of its potential for our schools.
Once again, the hon. Member was scaremongering.I want to put this on the record, in plain language that the hon. Gentleman will understand: health and safety is the responsibility of LEAs and governors. Will the hon. Gentleman please understand that our revised premises regulations will maintain each and every standard that bears on the health and safety of our children?
The picture is far from the study in grey that the hon. Member painted. I believe that the hon. Gentleman, behind the rhetoric, knows what we know--that the Government have an excellent record on education spending. He might laugh, but our record contrasts with the policy that the Liberal Democrats promise. To what does that promise amount? We know now. I refer to the education section of a widely circulated document that has the words, "very limited circulation" on the front. It is spelt out as a point of weakness. Liberal Democrats
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed that that document is alive and kicking, and is living in the Liberal Democrat policy unit.
It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with his EU counterparts on the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty. [12343]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind):
I have regular contacts with my counterparts from other member states, during which we discuss a wide range of European Union issues, including economic and monetary union.
Mr. Griffiths:
Does the Secretary of State have regular contact with the Home Secretary, who wrote the foreword to a pamphlet from the Centre for Policy Studies which was published on Monday and which opposes monetary union? Does the Secretary of State agree that economic convergence will cause heavy unemployment and heavy new taxes?
Mr. Rifkind:
I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the pamphlet, but I have no doubt that the Home Secretary's comments will be very much in line with the Government's view on that important issue. The whole question of convergence depends on whether there is a real and sustainable convergence of the countries involved. Clearly, such an important issue ought to be determined on the basis of confidence that such a policy would succeed with the objectives that have been laid down.
Mr. Renton:
Following that reply, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the convergence criteria were drafted by central bankers, but their implementation will depend on politicians who are elected by ordinary citizens? In that context, has he noticed in any recent discussions that his French, German or Italian counterparts think that the criteria should be revised?
Mr. Rifkind:
Different views have been offered by different people, but I have noted that the German Government in particular have made it clear that they attach supreme importance to the convergence criteria being satisfied. They have said that they have no intention of seeing any weakening in the convergence criteria, and I think that that is a responsible approach.
Mr. Shore:
Are not those convergence criteria just an arbitrary package of deflationary measures designed to achieve an unwanted, federalist objective of a single currency? Is it not time that the Government made plain to our partners in the European Community that we have no intention whatever of burying the pound sterling in a Euro-currency, either in 1999 or on any other occasion?
Mr. Rifkind:
The existence of the convergence criteria is a recognition that it is crucially important that the
Mr. Budgen:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain whether it is his understanding that the third criterion--that we should have been in the exchange rate mechanism for two years before we can move any further towards a single currency--still applies?
Mr. Rifkind:
I have heard the view widely expressed that the changes in the exchange rate mechanism since that condition was laid down, and the fact that there is now a wide band between the various members of the ERM, mean that much less value can be attached to that condition than was the case in the past.
"common sense would suggest, that effective teaching depends on more than the physical context in which the teacher works".
"just want to throw money at education."
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |