| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Education Funding (Cornwall)
12.11 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): I appreciate the opportunity to initiate a debate on this important issue. I appreciate even more the fact that we now have a little more time for the debate, although I hope that the Minister has not been too much inconvenienced. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House with Cornish constituencies may want to take advantage of some of that extra time. As my speech was rather tightly timed, I may relax slightly. Although there might be some slight variations of view--there are certainly variations in the interpretation of what hasbeen happening recently--all Members with Cornish constituencies are united across the political divide as to the case for a fair deal for children in Cornish schools. We share concern about the difficulties experienced by schools in matching funding with the important principle of ensuring that our children receive the best possible education.
The background to that concern is the Conservative education legacy that left schools in crisis, nowhere more so than in Cornwall. Perhaps it is no surprise that not one Conservative Member is in the Chamber at present; it would be extremely difficult for them to defend that position. There were cuts in local council funding and an endless revolution in education policy, as successive Secretaries of State felt the need to make their mark. As they could not offer the funding that was actually needed, they offered change. That was change that teachers could have done without, because they had a job to get on with--delivering quality education. Schools were left underfunded and teachers were left demoralised.
The election of the new Labour Government, pledging to make education a No. 1 priority, was, therefore, a cause for real optimism among teachers and parents alike. However, during the past year, desperate letters from demoralised teachers and school governors have reappeared in my postbag--they were not there for a while after the general election--and the reasons are not hard to find. The financial position is especially acute in Cornwall, because the Conservatives took the view that Cornish children needed less funding for their education than children in other parts of the country. Almost £10,000 less was received for a primary school with 100 pupils, and that was £10,000 less every year. A small secondary school with 500 pupils received £50,000 less each year. Throughout the county, that was a great many books, computers, teachers and classroom assistants.
I have never accepted the way in which Government standard spending assessments are calculated for rural areas, such as my own. Although I shall be critical about the lack of change, I hope that the Minister for School Standards will accept that I understand that is a legacy from the previous Government and that it is not easy to change. She might be aware that I raised that matter in debate several years ago under the previous Government, and that I received precious little response.
However, even with our funding shortfall, Cornish schools have always produced outstanding results. In a recent survey, more Cornish schools were picked out for praise than in any other education authority in the south-west. That is due to the dedication of staff andthe extremely supportive, although financially poor,
local communities. Parents of children at schools raise funds, but, equally, they provide children with a supportive environment at home; elsewhere in the country, that may not happen as much as it should.
Yet why should our schools receive less funding than other areas, even if they achieve good results with the funds available? I hope that the Minister will agree that Cornish children need the same help as those in any other area. We do not expect special treatment, and we understand that some children, in some places, need special help--for example, with languages--that does not normally apply in Cornish schools. However, the issue is broader than that; it goes beyond the few local authorities that have those special needs. We want a fair deal for our children and we believe that we deserve it.
At the turn of the year, I obtained some figures in response to a question from the Library. The answer was the last thing that I expected--it was certainly not the reason that I asked the question. The sad and surprising fact was that unfair allocation of funds--the differential between the national average and what we receive in Cornwall under the SSA--has become worse, not better, under the Labour Government. Our children now receive even less per head compared with the national average than under the Conservative Government. Every year, the cumulative effect of more than 10 years of decay and delay already does its worst to our children's education system. Labour have failed to take the action necessary to put that right. The debate offers me an opportunity to draw that to the Minister's attention, and hopefully, the matter can be reconsidered.
In part, it is a national issue and not merely a Cornish one. At the turn of the year, the latest national figures from the Audit Commission showed that, throughout the country, expenditure per pupil continues to fall in real terms by £53 per pupil in primary schools and by £90 per pupil in secondary schools. As I have explained, Cornwall's allocations are lower than that national average and are worsening by comparison.
Labour promised "Education, education, education", but since taking office, they have spent two years tied broadly to Tory education spending plans. Of course, it was a manifesto commitment to stick with those budget plans--one that Liberal Democrats criticised. We are seeing the results of that decision. At the general election, people voted to kick out those cuts in education, but so far it is precisely those cuts that the Labour Government have delivered.
However, there is not a shortage of funds. Gordon Brown has raised taxes overall; he has not cut them. According to a recent written answer, the Departmentfor Education and Employment carried forward £121.7 million in unspent funds from 1997-98 to1998-99, while schools throughout Great Britain continue to struggle for funding. I am sure that the Minister will point out that spending will rise during the years running up to the next general election and beyond, but during the whole Parliament, education expenditure in real terms is set to rise by only £3 billion above Conservative trends. I must compare that sum with the amount of more than £10 billion that would have been added for education, over the course of a Parliament, by the Liberal Democrat proposal for a penny on income tax.
The debate is about Cornwall in particular and, although I do not expect that the Minister will agree with me about the overall national figures, I want her to
address the point that Cornish children are underfunded even in relation to those national problems. In 1996-97, the last year of the previous Conservative Government, under the SSA, children in Cornish primary schools were allowed £69 less each than the average for children in the rest of the country. Under the Labour Government, that figure has now risen to £89 less for each Cornish child. In 1996-97, each secondary school pupil received £84 less than the average for the rest of the country; under Labour, the amount is now £97 less per child.
The differential is significant. In a secondary school of 1,000 pupils, £97,000 every year is more than enough for the books, equipment and repairs that are needed. The Government's funding formula, calculated on pupil numbers, continues to discriminate against rural areas, where there are inevitably higher costs--especially for transport--because of their geography. This year, for example, Cornwall county council had allocated a large amount to school transport, but then found that it had an overrun of £1.2 million. There are also higher costs in maintaining relatively small schools in village communities. I believe that is entirely right, because such schools are vital to the infrastructure of those communities and provide a local education for children who might otherwise have to travel many miles. However, those schools are relatively expensive to support; they create difficulties over class sizes and require extra staff and administration that would not be necessary if there were a small number of much larger schools--as would be typical of urban areas.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |