---

Dr. Spink: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, who makes a sound point. But I think that she is missing the point that I am trying to make. If we simply bolt on an extra year of nursery education and continue for the following 12 years to pursue the current child-centred project methods that are failing to teach children to read, write and be numerate, we will not solve the problems. We must change the whole system, as we cannot simply inject quality by one year of nursery education and ignore the rest of the system's failings.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman indicated assent.

Dr. Spink: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend now agrees.

Having established that there is a problem, I shall address its causes. Funding has a part to play and, as society develops, we should direct a greater proportion of our national wealth towards education and training. However, increasing spending on education does not necessarily result in improved standards, and there is often an inversely proportional relationship between the amount of money spent per pupil and the standards provided. That is the case even in areas that appear to be socially comparable, such as areas within Essex--but I will not embarrass my colleagues by going into detail.

I want to address the distribution of the total available education funding between the phases, as I believe that the primary phase does not get an appropriate share of the overall resources. I have long held that view, and fought on the issue in Dorset in the 1980s and in Essex in the 1990s, where I started a campaign to shift funding towards primary education in 1991. I carried out a Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting statistics analysis and revealed that Essex primary schools were among the worst-funded of the 106 LEAs. A report in the Yellow Advertiser on 29 January 1993 said:

5 Jun 1996 : Column 546

"Spink launches new attack on primary school funding.


MP Dr Bob Spink has returned to the attack about the underfunding of local primary schools which results in children of two different year groups being put in the same class . . . Rick Morgan, spokesman for Essex Primary Heads Association, said, 'We are fully behind Bob Spink in his stand to get better funding for Essex primary schools as they are the poor relations compared with other counties, and are also badly off when you see the gap with the funding Essex gives to its secondary schools."

I was delighted to receive the support of Rick Morgan, who helped me in my fight and helped to change society in Essex for the better by forcing Essex to shift funding. His hard work will pay dividends, and he is to be congratulated. A letter on 13 May from Paul Lincoln, the director of education in Essex, illustrates the change that we forced upon the Essex LEA. The letter states:

"the funding of primary schools is a priority for the County Council".

It was not a priority until Rick Morgan, myself and other good people forced the council to make it a priority. The letter goes on to say:

"the total primary school budget has increased in each year, between 1992/93 and 1996/97 . . . there has however been a significant increase in the number of pupils in primary schools and whilst the expenditure figures . . . indicate a 31 per cent. increase in funding, when compared on a per pupil basis this reduces to 23 per cent."

I am proud to have initiated the move that brought about that change. The figures do not indicate that there has been any starvation of funding from the Government or Essex county council, and I congratulate both of them. However, I insist that they go further.

Emboldened by my success in Essex, I took the matter to the Education Select Committee, of which I was a humble member. I initiated an inquiry by the Committee into the relative funding of the phases and, in July 1996, the Committee published a report entitled "The Disparity in Funding Between Primary and Secondary Schools". There is insufficient time to go into the details of that report, but it was excellent and I recommend it to all my colleagues.

The Government response to the report was published in October, and its conclusion stated:

"The witnesses with secondary school backgrounds regarded the disparity between the phases as being relatively small, but not so small that it could be adjusted without serious disadvantage to secondary schools. Those with primary school backgrounds and most of the neutral witnesses thought that the disparity was too large and should be reduced. We are persuaded that the latter are right."

I was greatly gratified that the Government were persuaded, and the response went on to specify:

"Any real terms increase in funding that becomes available, from either national or local government, for example to fund additional pupils in the system, should be distributed disproportionately (as compared with historic practice) in favour of primary schools. In addition, there should be a small annual shift between the sectors, especially with regard to administrative costs. All primary schools should be enabled to benefit from the latter changes."

I quoted from the conclusion extensively because it is important that the Department for Education and Employment does not forget that commitment.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton): As a current member of the Education Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on gaining this debate--thereby raising the priority of the subject--but on what he has achieved in primary school funding. Will he tell us

5 Jun 1996 : Column 547

whether the Government have carried out their intentions? Before he concludes, will he reiterate that there is no point in having vast resources unless one has the right teachers and the right teaching methods? In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to the amazingly interesting "Panorama" programme the other night.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a number of extremely important points, and I will deal with them in my speech. I also intend to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in an intervention at the beginning of my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton(Mr. Nicholson) about the progress that the Government have made in shifting funding towards the foundation of primary education. If we get it right there, it will be cheaper to fund the latter stages.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We must include nurseries.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend continues to ride her own hobby-horse.

It is important to keep changing the balance of funding between the phases of education. It is wrong that, in some instances, we spend double the amount on a 15-year-old that we spend on a six-year-old, because it is more difficult to change the attitude and improve performance of that 15-year-old, whereas it is easy to change the attitude of six-year-olds and to instil in them the discipline and skills that they need. It is essential to build that foundation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not just the discrepancy between the 11-year-old and the 15-year-old that is of concern but the discrepancy between the nearly 11-year-old and the just turned 11-year-old--that gap is enormous. My hon. Friend may be aware that that discrepancy is bad in Lancashire, but unfortunately discretion lies entirely with the county council. I do not believe that it is possible for the Government to lay down the law unless they can manage to influence dreadful councils such as Lancashire.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes another good point. The report of the Select Committee on Education on disparity in funding considered the jump between year 6 and year 7 and made some recommendations about it. I recommend my hon. Friend to read those recommendations, because she will be gratified to find that her views are supported by the Committee. It is interesting to note that Japan does it the other way round and spends more per pupil on primary children than it does on secondary children. Perhaps that offers a message for us.

It is important to get the foundations right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, funding is not the essential problem. I accept that we must address that issue, but it is not the key to resolving the problem of low standards in schools. My hon. Friend has already told us the key to that.

Parents are much more important than funding. A child's outcome in education is critically dependent on his parents' attitude, involvement and motivation. That

5 Jun 1996 : Column 548

correlates positively with success, whereas a parent's indifference correlates with failure. I am not aware of any formal research into that problem, which would be difficult to undertake, but I would be pleased to know of some. Common sense dictates that parental involvement is more important than almost anything else.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is agreeing with me again--I am grateful.

It is difficult for me to see how politicians can encourage more self-reliance and understanding among parents. Often today's parents are the product of failed socialist progressive methods. They are victims of the politically correct systems and attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s that have hung around for far too long.

Parents have the key responsibility for their children's education. Many do not understand that fact. They have the key responsibility for anything concerning their children. They bring their children into the world and they are responsible for their behaviour, education and even their diet--not us. They think that we are responsible, but we are not. Teachers do not have the key responsibility for children's education, nor do the schools, the LEAs, the Government, the Department for Education, and Employment, or I. Parents have that key responsibility. But it is the fashion to resist accepting responsibility. Today many people try to shift responsibility to the state; they blame it for everything. That does not wash. I do not know how to break that problem, but I know that break it we must. We must promote self-reliance and reject the nanny state. We must reject bigger government in all its forms and seek smaller government.

I have no solution to the problem of promoting parental involvement and responsibility, but we have provided solutions to another key problem of maintaining standards in schools and of teaching. The Government have introduced excellent reforms. We gave control back to schools, governors, parents and took power away from the state and the LEAs. We devolved power to those directly concerned with their children's education. We performed the ultimate act of devolution and democracy, and it worked. The local management of schools gave financial control to every school but Labour resisted it.

---