| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Into schools.
Again, reasonable people will be astonished by the county's reaction to the wonderful news of such a substantial increase. So far, its reaction has been this.In early January, it published a discussion paper that outlined possible cuts in primary and secondary school funding of £25.2 million. That was greeted by parents, teachers and Conservative county councillors with outrage and frustration. No doubt because of that clamour, the county recanted just a little. It modified its proposals to say that there might be a cut in education generally of only £6.7 million.
Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North):
Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents in my constituency are extremely worried that, even if the county does not proceed with its initial proposed cuts of 8 per cent.and cuts the budget by only, as he said, £6 million, that will constitute a real threat to some of the most valued parts of school life, such as music and sports provision, books and many extracurricular activities? Would it not be disgraceful if those services were threatened as a direct result of the county council's managerial incompetence?
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd:
I agree with my hon. Friend. What I and I am sure any parent in Lancashire find perplexing is how any county council could propose cuts of £6.7 million in education when the Government have increased its share by £26.6 million. That is what County Councillor Stan Wright must answer.
I am fortunate in the timing of the debate, because the county must make a final decision about its funding on22 February next week. I hope that, between now and then, parents, teachers and governors will write in the way I have suggested.
Any parent or teacher who is frustrated by the county's education funding has a method of escape from the problem. It is to persuade other parents in their school to request a ballot so that a vote can be taken on whether the school should become grant-maintained. In that way, they will avoid the enormous burden that schools indirectly bear for under-employed staff at county hall.
Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston):
I think that Conservative Members pay too little attention to announcements by the county council, because they are too busy filling the soundwaves with their unjustified complaints about the county. Were this not so, they would know that the £26.6 million is all to be spent on schools, as the county council has made clear. I am pleased, however, that the parents, governors and teachers of Lancashire understand the issues far more clearly than Conservative Members do. They know whom to blame.
I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) say that the amount of money spent on education is entirely a matter for the county. The fact is that the Government set the parameters within which local authorities have to operate. The hon. Gentleman's astonishing statement suggests that the development of a rich imaginative life, which should form part of any good education, has taken root particularly effectively in his case.
Mr. Mans:
Does the hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that education should become the responsibility of Blackburn borough council and should be taken away from the county council because it has managed education so incompetently?
Mrs. Wise:
My hon. Friend's views on unitary status for Blackburn are well known. They do not relate to any incompetence on the part of the county council. They arise from his view of a desirable structure for local government, and that view is not directed against the county council. Conservative Members should put that point to my hon. Friend, when they have the chance, and he will confirm what I am saying.
As I was saying, parents, teachers and governors clearly understand where the blame lies. I am pleased that they were alerted by the chairman of Lancashire education committee to what might be afoot, because their ensuing campaign has successfully prevented even worse excesses by the Government. It would have been no use waiting until decisions had been made and then complaining about those decisions. Far better to encourage a campaign to improve the quality of the Government's decision-making. The Government certainly need a lot of help in that respect.
My hon. Friends and I receive a steady stream of information and complaints from schools and parents in our constituencies--none of them directed at the county council. No school or parent in my constituency has directed any wrath at the county council. I recently received a typical such letter, which helpfully included the latest inspectors' report. It comes from Savick county primary school, whose head teacher has given me permission to use the information that he sent me, as he says,
The head teacher says that he is sure that I will wish to celebrate, with him, the many good things that the inspectors found to say about the school. So I do. The school's achievements are legion, and are a great tribute to the staff and pupils. But the report clearly establishes that class sizes are far too great. The report points out that, at the crucial key stage 2, class sizes are enormous, all but one containing more than 35 pupils.
This of course is not the fault of the county council.It is the fault of inadequate funding for education generally. Unlike Ministers and the chief inspector, the inspectors who looked at Savick county primary do regard class sizes as crucial to delivering a good education. They say:
The inspectors also say that financial control by the school is good; it continually seeks value for money. The recommendations of the most recent auditor's report have been put in place. Routine accounting is good and well maintained. The school, the report says, gives satisfactory value for money--yet the inspectors also say that the objectives of the staff and governors must include
That is tantamount to saying that teachers should be not just good teachers, but magicians too.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
As the hon. Lady well knows, it is not simply a matter of class sizes--otherwise, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield(Mr. Blair) would not have sent his child past many state schools with smaller class sizes to the Oratory.
Does the hon. Lady agree that one way in which the county might make some savings is to stop campaigning in my constituency against schools that want to adopt grant-maintained status--including Archbishop Temple school, to which many of the parents in her constituency send their children?
Mrs. Wise:
It was noticeable that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was unable earlier to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) about administration costs in Lancashire. As he pointed out, they are below the national average. Until we hear a soundly based statistical rebuttal of that statement, Conservative Members should be quiet and cease their accusations against the county.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You heard the question that I put to the hon. Lady. Is she not obliged to answer it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
That is not a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is entirely up to the hon. Lady how she chooses to answer.
Mrs. Wise:
I have answered the hon. Gentleman in a way I think effective. My constituents will also think it effective. The hon. Gentleman is merely wasting time in this debate. If he has things to say, no doubt he will make a speech of his own.
"to fight the complacency of the present Administration".
"A combination of a reduction in the school's budget and the need to create a reserve fund has caused an increase in class sizes to over 35 at Key Stage 2. Some teaching areas are overcrowded, which not only affects teaching and learning but also health and safety, particularly in science and physical education."
"finding ways of reducing the class sizes".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |