| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Apr 2003 : Column 517—continued
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those lessons can go both ways? The employment levels in those countries are far worse than the great experience of Britain, which now has an extra 1.5 million jobs. Before we go down the route of compulsory streaming and inflexibility, we need to think about flexible labour markets, regional variations and full employment—which is what we are succeeding in achieving here.
Mr. Green: I entirely agree that, because of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, the British economy is significantly more flexible than the economies of other countries in the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the deregulatory, low-tax economic policies that the Conservative party put in place in the '80s and '90s are good for employment, I completely agree with him. I hope that he is going to contribute to
this debate later, and I suggest that he addresses his remarks to his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has spent the last five years raising taxes on British business and tying it up in red tape in a way that will increase unemployment in the long term.If the Government were really serious about broadening skills, they would have done more for hard-pressed further education colleges. Further education offers the best opportunity for all our citizens to reach what we consider to be the acceptable minimum level of skills. Of course colleges must work with business; many do so already, with much success; it beggars belief, however, that the taster for this summer's skills strategy did not even mention colleges. That shows how low FE colleges come in the Government's pecking order.
The Secretary of State mentioned sector skills councils. He might have explained why it has taken so long to move from the old national training organisations to the creation of those councils. He knows that that is seen by many of those at the sharp end in trying to raise this country's skills levels as one of the significant policy failures over the past two years. We know why the Government have shied away from making radical change to address the skills problem: their last attempt—the individual learning accounts scheme—collapsed in such chaos that we are still awaiting a replacement 18 months later. Only last week, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted the extraordinary incompetence displayed by the Government in setting up and administering that scheme. Almost £100 million of taxpayers' money was wasted due to nothing more than the ineptness of the Department for Education and Skills, which is a fitting description of the Government's policy of taxing, spending and failing.
What was in the Budget was inadequate; it left out any attempt to deal with the growing funding crisis in our schools. The two are directly related—we will not achieve a highly skilled work force if millions of our children leave primary school unable to read, write and count to an acceptable level and if they leave secondary school without a single qualification. Those young people should not have to need schemes and initiatives after they have left school. They need a properly run school system with well-motivated heads and teachers.
We should look at what the Government have done to our schools. Notably, the Chancellor made a lot of use of comparisons in his Budget. He made geographical comparisons to consider countries whose economies are in an even bigger mess than the one to which he has reduced ours and he tried some comparisons over time, so I will do the same. The House should think back just nine months to the comprehensive spending review. What a contrast between the problems faced now by schools and colleges throughout the country and the jubilant words that surrounded last summer's spending announcements. The Chancellor had raised national insurance contributions and the record £12.8 billion increase promised for the next three years would, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), the then Secretary of State,
- "deliver higher standards, better behaviour and more choice . . . Investment will be matched by radical reform."
Gregory Barker: I want to give my hon. Friend a particular example. In East Sussex, the education budget is being slashed by £14.6 million, which represents a loss of perhaps 900 of the county's 3,700 posts as a direct result of the Government withdrawing funds from East Sussex county council. Those are shocking double standards.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right, and he is aware, as I am, that there is a problem not just in his part of the world, but all over the country, whatever the political colour of the council.
I want to refer to a letter from Westminster head teachers, who have written to all parents in Westminster:
- "We . . . wish to make it clear that we will be unable to provide effective full-time education for pupils with the funds allocated in the financial year 2003/04. Consequently the targets set in the recent target setting round will no longer be valid and standards will inevitably suffer."
- "The Government would do well to heed the warnings being given by Northumberland's head teachers today.
They paint a bleak picture of the future of the county's classrooms if rocketing costs are not met with fair levels of investment from Whitehall."
- "Seven months down the line"—
- "we have received information from the Head Teacher that most primary schools in the area"—
- "are facing a difficult time resulting from a change in the national funding formula . . . most importantly—why are our children's education being damaged by what I can only now assume is an incompetent government, who seems to care more for people entering the country than it does for its own constituents?"
- "I have supported this government, I have lobbied for this government, I rejoiced when the labour government took power. . . Well, you've finally lost my vote. I put my children and the future of our country first. I cannot support a government who clearly have such different priorities. I never thought I would hear myself say it, but bring on the Conservatives."
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman will have to be a lot more convincing when he addresses his constituents, whose votes he is losing.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is committing the Conservative party to spending more on education than we spend or would he cut expenditure?
Mr. Green: I am committing the Conservative party to ensuring that money that the public sector raises through taxes goes into schools. The Secretary of State's central failure is that he is taxing and spending more while failing to get the money into our schools. He does not need to take that from me; he can take it from head teachers, governors and parents all over the country.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), tells us that there is waste in our public services of up to 20 per cent., so there would be a cut of that order. Where would that happen in education and how would such a cut assist the schools about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned?
Mr. Green: The shadow Chief Secretary said that he would be looking to cut administrative waste. If Labour Members think that there is no administrative waste in the public sector, frankly, they should open their eyes. Our aim is to deliver improvements in public services through genuine reform to make them world class. The Government gave that promise to the British people, but teachers, parents and governors know that they have signally failed to carry it out. In both Labour and Conservative areas, it is clear that less money is going into our schools this year compared with last, and teachers and teaching assistants all over the country are threatened with redundancy.
Mr. Green: I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon).
Dr. Iddon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I invite him to Bolton? We have never seen so many extensions to schools or new schools built. There are more teachers, more books and more equipment. Under the previous regime, there was nothing but cuts, cuts, cuts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |