| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Local Education Authorities (Administration)
7. Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities increased the amount spent on administration and reduced the amount spent on schools in the last year for which information is available. [7057]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): In 1994-95, there were 14 such authorities. This year the Government have announced a further hefty increase--an extra £633 million--in provision for local education authorities. I urge all LEAs to deliver that spending power to schools and not to use it to fund bureaucracy.
Mr. Steen: Will the Minister confirm that next year Devon's county education budget will increase by over
11 Dec 1996 : Column 269
3 per cent. and that that money will go to schools and not to administration? Will he say something to the misguided and wholly unacceptable banner-waving groups in my constituency who are crying, "Cuts in education," when everyone knows that Devon education has never had more money than it will have next year?
Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I can confirm that the increase in Devon's education standard spending assessment is 3.8 per cent., which is above the national average. Of course--as he is aware, but as some of his constituents, misled by placard wavers, may not be aware--between 1979-80 and 1994-95 the Government increased funding per pupil by 48 per cent., after taking out all inflation. We have a proud record on funding. It is clear that Devon has the resources and I hope that it, and all LEAs, will devote a lion's share of the increases to schools rather than to town hall and county hall.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister confirm that Devon is in the lowest 15 in Britain for spending on central administration and has a fine record? Perhaps he will also confirm, however, that the high spenders on central bureaucracy are Westminster [Hon. Members: "Tory"], Wandsworth [Hon. Members: "Tory"], Kensington and Chelsea [Hon. Members: "Tory"] and the City of London [Hon. Members: "Tory"].
Mr. Squire: I was going to keep a shroud over the list of 14 authorities in the original question, but as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to name some of them, I can confirm that Sheffield, Camden and Durham are also in that list.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: My hon. Friend is aware of the success of the delegation of budgets to schools and we would all like the maximum amount of money to be transferred from LEAs to schools, consistent with the provision of those essential central services. Does he accept that, because of the tendency to enshrine historic expenditure in the local formula adopted by the vast majority of LEAs, anomalies have started to appear over time? Will he confirm that the Department is still working towards an evaluation of the need for a national formula for funding?
Mr. Squire: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's last point. We are taking careful account of the many representations that we received in the consultation earlier this year.
On what I judge to be my hon. Friend's central point about local management of schools schemes and the way in which local authorities distribute funding to schools, it is a good responsibility for LEAs to keep such things up to date and to take account of the points that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Don Foster:
Does the Minister agree that a great deal of humbug is talked about the amount of money spent on administration in education? Will he confirm that the White Paper published in the summer shows that, on average, administration costs represent about 1.8 per cent. of the total cost per pupil? Will he further confirm that that figure is considerably less than the amount spent by
11 Dec 1996 : Column 270
While we are on the subject of humbug, does the Minister accept that his answer to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was complete humbug? He tried to tell the House that the Government were making more money available for education, when the Red Book shows that the amount of money that central Government are providing to local government is being cut in real terms.
Mr. Squire:
The hon. Gentleman has underlined why we invariably look to the Liberal Democrat Benches for classic humbug as opposed to occasional humbug.
On administration, I can give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer. What matters is how each and every local authority and central Government make efficiency savings year on year. Averages often disguise the truth. What matters is that all LEAs have the same commitment to delivering quality services. I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who may not have heard me, that we are providing significant additional funding to schools this year and we expect it to be spent predominantly on the schools themselves.
Mr. Dunn:
Given that Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council is one of the worst offenders and spends a huge amount of money on administration, will my hon. Friend arrange for an official inquiry into the spending plans and policies of that county council to reduce that huge sum so that extra funds can be given to the county's schools? It is a nightmare for the people of Kent.
Mr. Squire:
Obviously, I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I know, from his long experience in education matters and his knowledge of the highways and byways, that he will continue to publicise the poor administration record of the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent LEA.
Mr. Dafis:
Have not schools shown strong resistance to any proposals to increase the compulsory percentage of money delegated to their budgets? Is that not why the proposal in the White Paper was withdrawn? Is it not time to introduce greater flexibility, as schools bear a heavy administrative burden and small schools in particular find it difficult to cope with heavy management responsibilities? Could that not be achieved through sensible county-wide negotiations between LEAs and federations of school governors?
Mr. Squire:
First, let me confirm that the proposal in the summer White Paper has not been withdrawn. It does not feature in current legislation, precisely because there is a need for widespread consultation among schools and LEAs and because some of the figure work will be fairly complex. Secondly, I am quite prepared to believe that some schools do not wish to have a greater share of their budget devolved to them. However, in response to the central issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, the record of grant-maintained schools--which control 100 per cent. of their budgets--shows overwhelmingly that they achieve better value for money. I am confident that, if LEA schools controlled a greater share of their budget, they could do the same.
11 Dec 1996 : Column 271
8. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met the representatives of other member states in the Council of Ministers to discuss job creation. [7058]
Mr. Forth:
Whenever other United Kingdom Ministers and I meet our European counterparts, we make it clear that the way to create jobs is through the development of efficient, flexible and competitive labour markets, not through imposing new legislative burdens on employers which only damage competitiveness and destroy jobs.
Mr. Marshall:
As the United Kingdom is in the premier league of job creation and countries such as Germany are in the third division, will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to host a seminar on job creation in Dublin this weekend so that Chancellor Kohl can discover that we in Britain can teach him a thing or two?
Mr. Forth:
I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been given quite a lot of advice about what he might say in Dublin this weekend from a number of different quarters, and I therefore hesitate to add even my hon. Friend's words of wisdom. He makes the valid point that we can now conclude safely that the route that we have chosen to take and the policies that we have chosen to pursue to create an environment that is friendly to job creation and business and attractive to inward investment present a far better chance of creating the maximum number of jobs--real jobs, jobs for the future--than the route chosen by our continental partners. That is becoming clear. The extent to which our partners have been persuaded by that argument will perhaps be better known after the Dublin summit.
Mr. Sheerman:
Before the Minister goes to the Council of Ministers with his usual bundle of prejudices, will he talk to the Business Services Association and other major employers that want a national minimum wage because they believe that it will raise standards, create jobs and stop the scandal of spending £3 billion of taxpayers' money on subsidising poor employers?
Mr. Forth:
Of course we listen to all groups and all representations on such matters; that has always been so. I must admit to a slight lingering suspicion that some groups take the view that the imposition of a statutory minimum wage would help to eliminate competition that they find difficult and unhelpful. If a statutory minimum wage were ever to eliminate new, thrusting, dynamic, entrepreneurial businesses, which tend to compete with established businesses, it would demonstrate beyond a doubt that the policy of a minimum wage, so beloved by the hon. Gentleman, would destroy many jobs in our economy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |