| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Willis: The reason why we have got to 10.10 pm and we are still not discussing the essence of the Bill is perhaps explained by the skills taskforce, which reported on Tuesday that 7 million adults have a lower level of literacy than an average 11-year-old and that a quarter of adults function at an innumerate level. The reason for that is the 18 years of Conservative education policy, which produced the most appalling levels of literacy and numeracy anywhere in Europe. The reason why Conservative Members do not want to speak about the Bill and to address it is because it is an indictment of what they left behind.
On amendment No. 76, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) clearly has an obsession about sixth forms. I hope that we will discuss much of the sixth-form agenda, and small sixth forms in particular, during consideration of a later group of amendments, but I must respond at least briefly. I hoped that she would make the point--it is a real problem--about Government policy on the funding of sixth forms in the transitional stage. They guarantee that, if their numbers stay the same, they will get the same amount of money. If the numbers go down, they will not, yet if the numbers go up or double, there is no guarantee that funding will rise in proportion. When the Minister replies to amendment No. 76, she must address that specific issue. Sixth forms cannot plan for the future when they cannot have the guarantee of funding, which is clearly necessary.
The amendments were yet another diversionary tactic away from the essence of the Bill. We have had discussion of sex, selection and grammar schools, and we are now on to free schools--or free-for-all schools. I do not need to remind the House--I was one of the people who worked under the glorious education system that existed until 1997--that the Tories want to return yet again to division, and to the idea that standards can be raised only by competition and not by co-operation. It is a travesty for the hon. Lady to talk about the grant-maintained schools movement being the saviour of our education system. The divisions that were created by the ballots organised for GM status caused immeasurable harm in authorities up and down the country, and a return to that would be desperate.
10.15 pm
The Tory policy of free schools is based on a series of myths about local education authorities. Before the hon. Lady attempts to intervene, let me say that not all local authorities are perfect. Many of them leave a lot to be desired in terms of supporting their schools.
The first myth is that local education authorities waste too much money on administration. In fact, LEAs spend less than 2 per cent. of their income on administration and most of that goes on the administration of appeals, the special educational needs system, the payroll and other essential expenditure. That pales into insignificance compared with the administrative costs of most schools or those of the Department for Education and Employment, which are estimated at about 5 per cent.
The second Tory myth about local education authorities is that they retain vast resources. They do nothing of the sort. Indeed, 94 per cent. of LEAs delegate at least 75 per cent. of their budget and the average figure, according to the DFEE's latest statistics, is 82.4 per cent.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): The hon. Gentleman omits to say that that is a result of legislation passed under the Conservative Government, which obliged LEAs to do just that. Until LEAs were obliged by legislation to start delegating money in the way that he described and slimming down their administration, they were far more cumbersome and burdensome bodies than he now tries to pretend.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically frank intervention. I am not disputing the fact that the previous Government introduced the arrangements; I am complimenting them for doing so. That makes it even more ludicrous that those on the Tory Front Bench are now saying that the arrangements that they introduced are inadequate. If that is the case, who is to blame but the then Secretary of State?
An analysis of the money that local education authorities hold back for central expenditure shows that the vast bulk of it is to provide services for special educational needs and for people with disabilities. If the hon. Lady is saying that they should not hold back that money or that they do not do so with the consent of their schools and school governors, as applies in most cases, clearly the legislation that was introduced by the Government whom she supported is not working.
The third myth is that LEAs divert money that is planned for education into other sources and that, somehow, it gets taken out of the education budget and moved elsewhere. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that when the Tories left office, the contribution by local authorities to education budgets in 1996-97 was no less than £699.3 million and that, in 1999-2000, the contribution that local authorities made in excess of SSA to school budgets was £387.7 million. That is hardly a picture of local authorities taking money away from schools.
The whole essence of the free school movement, espoused by the hon. Member for Maidenhead in new clause 13 and amendment No. 87, is that we should have central funding. Heads and schools are attracted to central funding, and, as a former head, I would be the first to admit that. However, the new clause provides that, with a few exceptions, all children in all schools in England would get the same amount of money from central funds. The hon. Lady should be honest and admit that the cost of funding every school to the highest level of funding would be £4.4 billion. If, however, the hon. Lady does not intend to fund all schools equitably, she must say where the funds will be taken from to be spent elsewhere. If no increase in central spending is intended, current Tory policy means that some 40 per cent. of schools would see a reduction in their budgets in order to meet the free schools pledge.
The other point that the hon. Lady has to answer is that the £0.4 billion that local authorities spend on schools would have to be found either centrally or from somewhere else. I doubt whether any hon. Member would be prepared to urge local councillors to say, during a local
election campaign, that the Government were funding schools now, but that we needed to spend another £400 million to top up what the Government should be spending. That is nonsense, but it is the reality of what the free school movement would mean.What evidence is there that our schools want to be free? What evidence is there that small rural primary schools want to be their own admission authority, to run all their services, to be responsible for their grounds and every other function or to organise contracts on a daily basis? They do not, and if the hon. Lady were honest about her discussions with schools in rural areas, she would agree that they want less responsibility. They want to be able to get on with teaching and leading their staff. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would plunge our schools into chaos, and I hope that the House will reject them.
Jacqui Smith: I shall keep my response brief because--as has been mentioned--we have not yet got on to the key issues of the Bill. The Opposition have not concentrated on those either. This debate has more to do with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) performing a warm-up act for the Leader of the Opposition's major speech on education next week than with a serious willingness to engage in the debate.
New clause 13 seeks to establish a national funding formula, applying on the same basis to all schools. As we have heard tonight, the previous Administration often said that they were in favour of greater delegation, but, in reality, they did little to achieve it. However, we have acted. Under fair funding, there is not only greater transparency, there is also greater delegation.
Later this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish once again tables showing expenditure by local education authorities, and their delegation rates. Those tables will show a substantial increase in delegation, brought about by the targets we have set and by the requirements to delegate repairs and maintenance fully, as well as personnel and finance administration.
Mrs. May: If the Minister is claiming that the Government are so much in favour of delegating money to schools, why did they abolish grant-maintained status?
Jacqui Smith: We have succeeded in delegating more money to all schools. Along with those matters that I mentioned, we have delegated personnel and finance administration, school meals in secondary schools--with the option for primary schools--insurance, if schools want it, and a number of smaller items. In all, an extra £1 billion is available for delegation.
Although we have achieved greater delegation and will go on increasing it, we have done so with a responsible attitude towards pupils. The Opposition talk of free schools, but they are less keen to acknowledge that there are significant issues that need to be addressed. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, pupils with special educational needs cannot be dealt with just through a formula; they are not numbers. LEAs are needed to take a wider view of their needs. What would the Opposition do about those children?
The Government have inherited lots of failing schools and are making strenuous efforts to turn them round--efforts which owe much to the involvement of LEAs and need flexible and appropriate funding. Presumably, the Opposition would set those schools free to flounder.
School transport is a delicate and difficult matter which needs co-ordination, especially if pupils' rights to transport to denominational schools--or even, dare I say it, grammar schools--are to be actually reflected in the available services. Again, how would the Opposition cope?
While the Opposition are thinking about what they would do, we have made clear what we will do. We are reforming the funding of education for those aged 16 to 19; part of that will be the funding of sixth forms via the Learning and Skills Council, but through LEAs so that local needs are properly addressed and schools continue to get funds from a single source. That illustrates how unnecessary amendment No. 87 is. We will be reforming the very heart of the education funding system in ways indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke earlier this month about the forthcoming Green Paper.
In that Green Paper, we shall set out options for arrangements that would be fair to different parts of the country, are more transparent and provide more predictability and stability than the standard spending assessment system with which we have to cope now.
We shall also explore the possibility of having separate budgets for schools and LEA central functions, so that we can be much clearer about the funding intended for schools. That would make clear the amount of funding that was being made available and end once and for all annual arguments about what schools should be getting. We will do that on the basis of discussion and consideration and not on the basis of a policy drawn up on the back of an envelope, such as the Opposition have provided this evening.
Quite aside from the fact--as was argued in Committee--that it is entirely unnecessary to put our sixth-form funding guarantee in terms in the Bill, there are other problems with amendment No. 76. On funding, spending in schools fell by £60 per pupil in the last three Budgets of the Conservative Government. Under this Government, spending will increase by £300 per pupil. Given those facts, I feel that our guarantee has rather more basis than any comments that the hon. Member for Maidenhead may have made this evening.
The hon. Member suggested that there was a fear for school sixth forms. If pupil numbers reduce, all that will happen is that the funds will reduce pro rata. That is exactly what has always happened under local management of schools and fair funding. The guarantee is maintained and it is a real-terms guarantee; that is unprecedented and is not reflected in the amendments.
There are several other technical problems with the amendment. It suggests that the baseline should be the academic year from September 2001, despite the fact that the transfer will happen only eight months into that year. The amendment seems also to suggest that funding for sixth forms should all of a sudden switch to the academic year from the financial year, which would surely cause chaos and increase administration and bureaucracy.
On consultation, I agree that we did not ask the London Conservative party to carry out our public consultation. However, there was widespread support for the case for change and on the question of what the baseline year for the funding guarantee should be.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |