| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Work and Family Life
9. Caroline Flint (Don Valley): If he will make a statement on the measures which his Department proposes to introduce to encourage parents to combine work with family life. [68880]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Working with employers and others, we will promote employment practices that benefit both families and businesses. We will finalise a campaign in the light of responses to our consultation document, "Supporting Families".
Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the spread of family-friendly working practices is not as wide as it might be? It is a shame that only one in 10 employers contribute in any way to the child care of their staff. Will she look at ways in which her Department and other appropriate Departments can provide joined-up thinking to encourage more employers to understand the business benefits of providing family-friendly policies for their staff, but also to see how we can enable some of those employers who want to do more to achieve their aim?
Ms Hodge: I agree that there is a lot of work to be done to change the culture on the acceptance of family-friendly employment policies. Some 46 per cent. of employees today have no access to any of the family-friendly working practices that we want to encourage. We are working across Government to raise the profile and importance of the policies to ensure that people understand the business case for adopting them. We shall be launching a campaign to provide advice, information and guidance, and we will give public recognition to those companies with family-friendly employment policies.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Does the Minister understand that, for most families,
financial constraints are the greatest pressure on family life and cause the most difficulties in combining that with work? Does she accept that steps to tax child benefit would only increase the pressure on family life, and would mean that hard-pressed families would spend more time working to make up for the money that they lose?
Ms Hodge: It is indeed the pressure of finance that means that many people work long hours and that families do not spend enough time together. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the Government's introduction of the minimum wage, which will tackle that problem. People want time, as well as sufficient income--and as a mother, I know that time is often at a premium.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): My hon. Friend and her colleagues on the Front Bench, as well as Labour Members on the Back Benches, keep referring to joined-up thinking and joined-up writing. If we want to introduce family-friendly provisions in the workplace and the other protections contained in the employment relations legislation, why are those provisions not to be extended to firms with fewer than 21 employees?
Ms Hodge: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the extension of the disability discrimination legislation, which reduces the number of employees in firms to be covered by the measures from 25 to 20. We shall make further progress in that regard once the Disability Rights Commission is established. We shall seek advice from the commission about reducing the threshold further.
Area Cost Adjustment
10. Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): What plans he has to review the standard spending assessment system, with particular reference to the area cost adjustment, in connection with education. [68881]
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): We all accept that there are valid objections to the current system, including the area cost adjustment. We will be looking at proposals for reform over the next three years.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I remind her that the scheme means that Kent, for example, benefits in purely educational terms to the tune of about £26.5 million year, and that Oxfordshire similarly benefits to the tune of about £8.2 million a year. However, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire's neighbouring county, loses out by about £2 million a year. Will she look at the iniquities of the scheme?
Ms Morris: We certainly will; indeed, we began to do so when we took office. The inequalities did not begin on 1 May 1997, they have been going on for years. The previous Conservative Government failed to tackle the issue. We have begun to look into the matter and I hope that, over the next few years, we can work with local authorities to achieve a better formula.
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South): The significant additional resources for education being provided by the Government are warmly welcomed
throughout the country, but is my hon. Friend aware that the anomalies of the area cost adjustments as reflected in educational standard spending assessments mean that those additional resources are widening unfairness? That, coupled with the serious anomalies in the additional educational needs formula, means that my local education authority, like many others, is at a serious disadvantage. In this regard, the Government's three-year plans are not bringing stability, but are perpetuating an injustice. Will my hon. Friend at least consider what interim measures can be taken to mitigate that serious problem?
Ms Morris: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has lead responsibility for looking at the SSA formula. However, we have been working closely with his Department and with others to try to deal with what I accept is a very serious matter. I take seriously what my hon. Friend says: his area and surrounding Staffordshire have suffered for too long from an unfair formula, but it is no good changing that formula if we do not get it right this time around. It is right that the Government work with local authorities to reach an agreement on how we can move forward. We were not able to reach an agreement this year, but we will continue to look at this important matter.
I thank my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the extra resources that have gone into Stoke. I assure him that, in terms of extra resources--available through the new deal for schools and the standards fund--there is nothing in the SSA formula that will mean that authorities such as his will not benefit at least as much as, if not more than, those that benefit from the current SSA formula.
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead):
It is clear from that answer, and from the Minister's earlier answer on schools funding, that the Government do not understand the impact of their policies--increased burdens on LEAs, extra bureaucracy and failure to fund fully the teachers' pay award--on SSAs and on LEA funding. One LEA has announced that the Government's interventions will cost it almost £1.5 million before it can even consider spending money on improving school standards. Does the Minister realise that her Department for intervention will cost LEAs and schools dear? Far from raising standards, intervention, intervention, intervention means bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. Money is being spent on Government intervention instead of being spent, as it should be, on standards in the classroom.
Ms Morris:
Half the time, I do not know what world the hon. Lady lives in. When her party was in government, it increased the SSA but did nothing to match the increase with increased funding. We have provided an increase this year that will give local authorities ample money to fund the most generous teachers settlement in years. Many key objectives relating to class size are being funded at 100 per cent., as were child care places.
On the question of intervention, I think that every penny spent to ensure that local authorities do their job well in passing on money to schools is money well spent. As far as central administration goes, we have taken powers to cap the amount of money that local authorities spend at the centre to ensure that they pass on the bulk to schools. The hon. Lady's Government could have taken those powers during their 18 years in power, but they did not.
11. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
If he will make a statement on the admissions policy of Mill Hill county high school. [68882]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett):
Mill Hill county high school has a substantial partial selection policy, with the usual admissions implications for parents in the area, and for other schools there. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the statutory code give parents the ability--like admissions authorities in the LEA area--to call on the adjudicator to make a judgment about the impact of those selective policies and the way in which they distort the real choice and preference of parents in the area.
Mr. Dismore:
Is my right hon. Friend aware of a real sense of outrage felt by many parents in my constituency at the fact that 45 per cent. of places at the school will be allocated by aptitude, with the bulk of the remainder going to siblings? Only 10 of the 210 places at the school are reserved for local kids. My right hon. Friend will understand why one parent has written to me, saying:
Mr. Blunkett:
I understand both the concern expressed by parents and the understandable outrage displayed by my hon. Friend. Forty five per cent. of places depend on selection, not aptitude--
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
What is the difference?
Mr. Blunkett:
The difference was invented by the previous Government and the previous Secretary of State. Perhaps the House can tell why I am so keen to ensure that history stays in the national curriculum. On the Opposition Benches, amnesia is matched by a lack of literacy and numeracy.
"The implication is that local children are not worthy of a place at this school."
What hope can he offer the many parents who live close to the school that their children will not have to travel many miles every day because of the elitist aspirations of the school's governors, which discriminate against local kids?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |