| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1112—continued
Miss Kirkbride: I shall be sending the Minister's comments to the 1,000 parents, teachers and governors who have written to me on this matter. They say simply that it costs pretty much the same amount of money to buy books and computers and to supply teachers. A basic need therefore exists. Despite what he said
today, they will not understand why the gap has got wider under Labour when it promised something different.
Mr. Miliband: We promised at every stage that similar pupils in different parts of the country would be treated in a similar way. The letter that I have sent to head teachers explains that.
It is also important to recognise the importance of the LEA's role in terms of the situation between different schools. When the money goes to schools, it is distributed on the basis of the formula adopted by the LEA. The LEA has responsibilities to ensure that need is recognised in its formula, as well as in the formula that we send out.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire did not mention sparsity in his remarks—I understand that he was short of time and that he has been concerned about the issue. Perhaps I can use the time remaining to put on record that there is now a significant recognition in the funding formula of the problems faced by sparse authorities. Sparse authorities wanted us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools, which we were not able to do. We have recognised in the primary sector, however, the significant extra costs associated with that factor.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned floors and ceilings. I have been impressed that the authorities on the ceiling have not been bombarding me with requests to get rid of that ceiling and to give them faster increases in funding, as they recognise that there is an inherent fairness in ensuring stability as we introduce the new system. The introduction of floors and ceilings has been an important part of ensuring a degree of consensus about the new system.
The Green Paper, which we published in the summer to kick off the process, promised that we would level up to a fair amount of funding per pupil. A fair distribution has to be arrived at, however, by considering the relative needs of children, not by arbitrary comparison with a
particular authority or level of funding, or by levelling an authority with low levels of deprivation up to the same level as one with high levels of deprivation. I understand, however, that the effect of the changes to the education funding formula has not been as dramatic as Worcestershire had hoped.I hope that my remarks at the beginning made it clear that significant funding increases are going into Worcestershire. I believe that we have a funding formula that is far clearer, far simpler and far more transparent. On that basis, it will command the respect of the education world and beyond, and will deliver the sort of stability that we both want.
Miss Kirkbride: As the Minister cut his remarks short, I am grateful to have some time to put our response to those remarks on the record.
While we have great respect for the Minister's intellect, what we heard was simply a load of waffle about the new formula. That simply does not satisfy our constituents, who genuinely feel that the gap has unfairly become wider, when it was wide enough ready, and that it costs pretty much the same to have books and computers and to employ teachers. The Government have not recognised basic cost per pupil in the school funding formula. I understand and support the idea that poorer authorities should have more money to give extra tuition to their pupils who may need it, but I very much resent the idea that just because a child comes from a poorer background, they must, by definition, be less clever and therefore need extra support in schools. That simply is not the case. It certainly was not the case when I was at school, and it is not what I see when I visit schools nowadays. Of course, the formula should represent in some ways deprivation, need, different languages and different ethnicity, but, ultimately, it is not right and proper—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
- Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |