| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was not only courteous and informative, but dealt helpfully with my concerns. In view of his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, at end insert--
The Second Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out 'or (b)' and insert '(b) or (g)'.
No. 4, page 3, line 46, at end insert--
New clause 1--Annual report to Parliament--
Mr. Foster:
The amendments would mean that local education authorities would be required to provide
The whole Committee will agree that since the new Government came to power, they have introduced a large number of proposals. Indeed, in doing so, they have left a number of people fairly breathless and somewhat uncertain about whether some of the proposals are likely to deliver the goods.
Indeed, on several occasions, the House and the British people have been asked to take a rather large number of issues on trust. Yesterday, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was debating with our European partners his proposals for resolving the significant unemployment problems throughout Europe. He announced various proposals that a number of people, including the Irish Foreign Minister, subsequently described as rather thin.
Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her proposals to require primary schools to introduce one hour of literacy teaching every day. Again, much has had to be taken on trust. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the national curriculum is massively overloaded, and it will be difficult to put that proposal into practice.
Many of us are concerned that unless the Government get the whole package right, they may not be able to deliver some of their worthwhile proposals. The same applies to the Bill. The Government are introducing legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme, through which they intend to save money in order to reduce class sizes for primary school children aged five, six and seven.
As I have said on previous occasions, the Liberal Democrats entirely support the proposed abolition of the assisted places scheme. We also support the proposal to reduce class sizes. Indeed, we urge the Government to go further and reduce class sizes not just for five, six and seven-year-olds, but for all primary school children, as we believe that class sizes are crucial. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, many people have grave reservations as to whether the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be sufficient to deliver the Government's promise.
On Thursday, the Minister for School Standards said:
In previous speeches, I have referred to the uncertainty of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the considerable doubt expressed by the Institute of Public Finance. I have also referred to the figures that were produced on this very issue by the previous Administration in answer to parliamentary questions. Does the Minister really believe that he can deliver that
pledge just by using the money from the assisted places scheme? I always believed that he did until I listened carefully to him on Thursday when he said:
Mr. Byers:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a Parliament normally lasts five years. I do not know whether he needs one of our numeracy hours, but five years will take us to 2002. We shall save £1 million by the turn of the century and the following two years will provide even more money to ensure that we can deliver on our class sizes pledge.
Mr. Foster:
If I need a numeracy hour, the Minister certainly does, too. He has just told the House that his proposals will save only £1 million. I am sure that he meant to say £100 million. Never mind, I shall get it right for him.
The Minister cannot deny that many people are concerned about the figures. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, perhaps she will answer a question that she was asked on Thursday: whether she and the Government are prepared to place in the Library their own estimates of the savings that will be achieved by the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the cost of meeting their pledge. After all, the details of how they plan to deliver have not yet been worked out, and are not likely to be available until the White Paper is published at the end of the month.
The abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools will be supported by Members on both sides of the House when they discover that it is now spending taxpayers money on producing a booklet called "Media Advice Notes for Schools". As The Guardian points out, the advice brings
On Second Reading, I made it clear that we are not all convinced that the sums add up, but we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We hope that they will be able to produce the document to which I referred and place it in the Library as quickly as possible. We also believe that, in order to keep track of what the Government are doing and whether they are living up to their pledge, it is vital that local education authorities report annually to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State reports to Parliament. That is the import of the amendments and I hope that they will be supported by the Government and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Ms Estelle Morris:
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised some interesting points. I share his concern about accountability and the House having every opportunity to monitor what the Government are doing and to make sure that we are working towards achieving our clear targets.
It is indeed our intention to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 by the end of this Parliament--2002. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I look forward to his encouragement and support in our progress towards achieving that aim.
'(g) require local education authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State about the financial and other effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.'.
'(7) Before making regulations under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any area in which there is a former participating school, consult the local education authority for that area concerning the availability of alternative school places in that area and the cost that will fall to the local education authority of providing such places.'.
'.--Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter for a period of no less than seven years, the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the effect of the abolition of the assisted places schemes.'.
"We believe that we are moving in a way that will deliver on a clear pledge that we made to the British people during the general election."--[Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 592.]
Clearly, the Minister is anxious to keep that pledge and we fully understand that. However, the big question is whether the money that will be released from the assisted places scheme will enable the Government to deliver on it.
"We have always made it clear that the pledge will be honoured at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament. By the year 2000, £100 million will be freed up from the assisted places scheme, and that will make an important contribution towards achieving our class sizes pledge."--[Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 595.]
It is therefore quite clear from that that even the Minister is beginning to doubt whether the money that will be released will be sufficient to achieve what he wants.
"to mind spoof hints to foreign visitors, such as: don't wait to be served in a British pub--you're expected to help yourself;".
Some of it is quite amazing. It begins:
"Contact with your local media is invaluable . . . Journalists do not generally appreciate large drinks or heavy lunches--but they may well accept an invitation to lunch in the school canteen."
If that is the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, I suspect that the Government would do well to abolish it quickly and save a bit of extra money to help provide the funding that they will need to deliver on their pledge on class sizes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |