| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Standard Spending Assessment
4. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): If he will make a statement on inequalities in education standard spending assessment per pupil between local education authorities. [109131]
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government are well aware of the widespread concern about the fairness of the current formula for funding local authorities. We announced in November 1998 a review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant that is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for standard spending assessments. We will issue a Green Paper on options for change by the summer.
Mr. Heath: How can it be right for the Government to fund every child in every school in Somerset by £1,500 a year less than a child in a school in a leafy suburb of London? Does not the standard spending assessment contribute to that injustice? Local education authorities, which are struggling with that problem throughout the country, find it difficult to understand that stability means prolonging injustice.
Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no justification for the figures that he cited. As soon as we took power, we started discussing a change in the formula with local authorities. In the first year, we were unable to reach agreement because not one local authority said that it had too generous an SSA. We have put in train consultation and work that will bring about change.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the problems of SSAs did not begin in 1997 and that the previous Government failed year after year to tackle them. We have acted quickly; we began the discussions in our first year in office, and we shall deliver shortly.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): May I draw the Minister's attention to a question that I asked in 1998 on the same subject? I spoke of the inequity of funding for Derbyshire and Derby City schools. Derby City schools receive 13 per cent. less per pupil than a school in Slough, and Derbyshire schools receive 12 per cent. less per pupil than a school in East Sussex. When I first asked the question, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said that he could not justify the existing system and that he intended to change it. That was in July 1998. When can we expect action?
Ms Morris: As I said in response to the previous question, we will issue a consultation paper in the summer, we will have the chance to discuss those options and we will make the change once we have got it right. On such an important matter, rushing and getting it wrong would be the worst thing that could happen. We need a system that offers local authorities and schools a stable formula in the years to come and I am happy to defend taking a bit more time to get it right because that is in the interest of children, teachers and parents. I know that my hon. Friend would also acknowledge that the Government
made significant funding available for Derbyshire as part of the school class size initiative. It was one of the local education authorities that received most funding, which means that children in Derbyshire, Derby and elsewhere are in smaller classes than they would have been, had the Government not come to power.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Does the Minister know that Wokingham is given grant to support spending of only £2,218 per primary pupil and only £2,873 per secondary pupil, whereas neighbouring Reading, which has similar costs and problems, is allowed £2,500 and £3,270? Many constituencies represented by Labour Members receive more than £5,000 of allowed expenditure. Does she agree that that is grossly unfair and that, because of that injustice, there is not enough money for places such as Wokingham? Does she agree that the Government do not put their money where their mouth is? They are all spin and no delivery.
Ms Morris: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has a bit more time on his hands now. Perhaps he might use it profitably by looking back at expenditure in his schools when he was a leading member of the Conservative Government. I cannot recall whether he ever held an education portfolio, but he cannot escape his responsibility for having let down children year after year. Under the Government, there has been a 5.6 per cent. overall increase in SSAs this year and money for books, class sizes and the national grid for learning on top of that. That is a record of which to be proud. We need to consider the funding formula for schools and that is exactly what we have done in our three years in power. The right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do anything in their 18 years.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the unhappiness in Cambridgeshire caused by the differential between Cambridgeshire's SSA and that of some neighbouring authorities, but does she agree that there has been a real-terms SSA increase under the Government and that, in addition, the standards fund has brought £11.3 million into Cambridgeshire in the current year and is projected to bring in nearly £15 million next year? Does that not show where the Government's priorities lie? The Conservative Government developed the formula, but consistently failed to reform it.
Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many questions have rightly been asked about the formula for distributing money to local authorities, but it is timely to remind people that that does not represent the sum total of the money that the Government put into education. When the standards fund and the literacy and numeracy strategy, which are funded centrally, are added together, expenditure far exceeds the 5.6 per cent. that has gone to local authorities, as she acknowledged.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): Has not Ofsted's inspection of LEAs revealed that the biggest inequality is how well local authorities manage their resources? Are not 17 of the 23 LEAs in which it identified serious concerns Labour authorities, and has it not uncovered sorry stories of incompetence and political interference in LEAs under Labour up and down the country? For
example, notwithstanding the promise of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), that Islington would provide education
- "in a class of its own",
- "financial difficulties and poor budget planning"
- "unacceptably poor state . . . frustration and demoralisation".
Ms Morris: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would want me to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point: Sheffield is run by the Liberal Democrats, not Labour. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be pleased to learn that the same applies to Islington.
The hon. Gentleman was able to ask his question only because this Government have decided to inspect local authorities, because this Government have taken powers to ensure that they can do something when they are shown to be failing, and because this Government have made certain that the amount spent by local authorities and passported to schools is available to the public. None of that happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government. The information is now available, and we have already shown by our actions and our words over the past year that where there is failure--whether it be in a local education authority or in a school, and whether an authority is run by the Tories, the Liberal Democrats or Labour--we will take action. What we are about is raising standards for individual children, and not playing politics, as the hon. Gentleman has done.
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Further to the question from my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), may I point out that there is an even worse case in terms of the county funding league? Leicestershire is used to heading the league in sporting terms, but in funding terms we do not, and the gap is becoming slightly larger: it is now £13 million a year. Does the Minister agree that that is a void into which many schools and students can plunge?
Ms Morris: The sum total of contributions from Members today simply enforces the Secretary of State's wish to change the formula and to ensure that it is fair and robust, so that, at future Question Times, Members can line up to congratulate us on the changes that we have made.
Mature Students
5. Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on applications for higher education from mature students. [109132]
6. Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): If he will make a statement on support for mature students in higher education. [109135]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The number of mature students entering higher education remains healthy, but we accept that mature students often have bigger financial commitments than others. We have therefore announced a package of measures, costing £68 million in a full year, which addresses their concerns. For the coming year, bursaries for mature students will be available, largely to support child care costs.
This week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the development of new two-year foundation degrees, which will be particularly attractive to mature students. He also announced a new framework for vocational qualifications, both in institutions and in the workplace.
Mr. Brooke: Given the fall in the number of applications from mature students, who are one of the glories of our higher-education system, does the Government's concern about the trend extend to accelerating their promised review of tuition fees?
Mr. Wicks: The fall in the number of mature students is very slight--less than 1 per cent. More are now choosing to study part-time. The number of 20-year-olds is smaller than it was some years ago, and we also have a buoyant labour market, which is enabling many people to choose to work and to study--in other words, to enter the sector part-time. We are confident that the opportunities for mature students will be buoyant in the future, not least because of the additional support that we are giving them.
Mr. Heppell: The Minister says that many mature students now choose to study part time. In fact, many are forced to do that because of work or family commitments. Can the Minister assure us that part-time students who have had a bad deal in the past, especially under the last Government--people on low incomes, or those who have lost their jobs to study--will have their tuition fees waived? Will they also be given help with extra study costs, such as the cost of books?
Mr. Wicks: It is certainly true that more mature students are now choosing to study part time, for the reasons given by me and by my hon. Friend. The former system of student support gave little if any help to part-time students, but we have changed that. In the current academic year, part-time students on low incomes will have their fees waived, as will those who lose their jobs while studying. In the coming academic year, part-time students will have access to loans for the first time.
In addition, part-time students are eligible for the disabled students allowance. Many people with disabilities have no choice but to study part time. That will be a major step forward for that group in getting access to that education sector.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): Is the Minister aware of his Department's research, which is now available in the Library, showing that mature students are deterred by tuition fees from accessing higher education and, indeed, that the Department knew that in advance? Does he not recognise that they and other disadvantaged students will be even more deterred by the threat of ever-increasing tuition fees, or, indeed, top-up fees?
The two universities in Oxford need to increase access to those groups, not just to restrict access to clever students who happen to be rich. At a time when Scotland is abolishing tuition fees as a discredited policy, should not the Minister explore that option, instead of considering new ways of imposing or increasing such fees?
Mr. Wicks: The proposals in Scotland do not involve the abolition of tuition fees--[Interruption.] I shall tell it to whoever wants to listen.
We are putting in place the £68 million package to help mature students, particularly those with children and child care costs. We are very sensitive to the family dimension--so much so that we have recognised, for example, an anomaly whereby school meals for children of mature students were not covered. We are putting that right. We are very sensitive to the issue. We want to enable more mature students to enter the system.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): I welcome the new package of financial support for mature students. Last week, I sat with a mature student in my constituency and went through the new proposals. That exercise demonstrated that they will be a real and significant help, but does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of university top-up fees is one of the measures that could affect access to university by mature students? Will he therefore reaffirm the Government's opposition to differential top-up fees?
Mr. Wicks: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I know of his interest in the matter. On top-up fees, the Government policy has not changed. The current system of student support is working well. Student numbers are up and more money is going into colleges and universities. The Government have announced an 11 per cent. real-terms boost for higher education funding in the current Parliament, but they recognise that a debate is under way in the wider world, which should be conducted with intellectual rigour. However, we are confident that the system is working well--[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not want to hear it, but more students are entering our system and more of those students are doing well. We are funding the higher education sector in a way that the last Conservative Government could not even begin to understand.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): On this morning's form, Ministers are clearly collectively preparing vigorously for
opposition. In his answers, the Minister has already had to concede that mature student applications are falling and that, despite the dirty deal done in Scotland, tuition fees remain a reality in Scotland, even if deferred. As a result of his clear embarrassment, he has had to concede an access package as well.In the light of that tremendous mega-mess for student support, which differs between Scotland and England, with new anomalies introduced every day, can the Minister answer a specific question: will his proposed access fund bursary in England for mature students be available to Scottish students at English universities who do not benefit from the Scottish student support arrangements? If so, on which departmental vote will it be carried?
Mr. Wicks: One of us has to learn opposition and, as the Minister for lifelong learning, I have a good guess who it will be. It is difficult to keep up with the Conservative U-turns. The Conservatives used to be against Scottish devolution; now I think that they are in favour of it. What their current position is on tax expenditure I do not know. I raise that because we would not think it sensible to spend hundreds of millions of pounds implementing Scottish proposals.
We would not be prepared to take that money from nursery education, the school system or the national health service budget. I am not sure whether the Conservative Opposition are now proposing doing that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |