| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Grammar Schools
8. Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe): What recent representations he has received about the future of grammar schools. [128976]
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): My Department has received various representations, both written and oral, about the future of grammar schools. These representations have reflected all sides of this debate.
Mr. Goodman : It is reported that the future of grammar schools will soon be debated at the Labour party conference. If there is a vote on selection, will the Secretary of State vote for or against?
Mr. Clarke: Actually, I do not want to illuminate the House too much as to Labour party policy making. Labour's policy on education will be determined at next year's party conference—in 2004—not at this year's. There will be a debate, as the hon. Gentleman says, about education, but no decisions will be taken, because decisions on our policy making are subject to long debate. I am glad to shed a little light on how a democratic political party works.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Our grammar schools and other post-primary schools in Northern Ireland provide an excellent educational opportunity for our children; in fact, the results are the envy of many other United Kingdom regions. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance today that the Government will not impose an education system in Northern Ireland that would conflict with the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of parents and teachers who were surveyed, who wish to retain grammar schools but want an alternative selection procedure?
Mr. Clarke: As luck would have it, I was in Belfast last week, speaking to the Association of Commonwealth Universities. I took the chance to meet the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to discuss several of these questions. My hon. Friend will reach a decision following lengthy debate—the hon. Gentleman will know about the
recommendations of the commissions that have considered the issues—and I am not in a position today to give any assurances on her behalf.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): When the Secretary of State is determining Labour party policy at next year's conference, will he invite me to speak at it, so that I can convince the Labour party and its dinosaurs that education in my constituency is a seamless robe of comprehensive schools, specialist schools, grammar schools and the college, and that the benefits of that proper mixture far outweigh any dogma that involves reduction to the lowest common denominator?
Mr. Clarke: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, as I know that many Conservative Back Benchers are trying to flee their party's Front-Bench policies. We have a rigorous membership process in our party, so I cannot guarantee that if the hon. Gentleman wants to come over and join us he will be accepted. If he decides to go down that course and participate in our debates, it would be a positive political development, which would reflect the reality of Conservative party weakness at the moment.
School Redundancies
10. Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): What estimates he has made of the number of (a) teacher redundancies and (b) classroom assistant redundancies as a result of 2003–04 school funding. [128978]
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Every year the Department collects statistics on teacher and support staff numbers in January with publication of the first results in April. This has been a difficult year for some schools, as we debated in the House on Tuesday, and we are working with local education authorities and representatives of head teachers to deliver continued growth in the school work force.
Mr. Flook: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, but it may conceal more than it reveals. According to The Times Educational Supplement survey published three months after the beginning of the financial year, three quarters of the posts lost in this country have been from schools with rising or static rolls. All hon. Members have received representations about redundancies and I want to ensure that the money gets through to Somerset schools. Does the Minister agree that part of the solution may lie with a top-heavy local education authority in Somerset?
Mr. Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to see the cash getting through to schools, and he will be relieved to know that £1,060 is allotted for every pupil in Somerset—more in this academic year than in 1997–98. Additionally, he should know that there are 3,400 more teachers in Somerset than there were six years ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned The Times Educational Supplement survey. If he had read to paragraph 9 rather than stopping at paragraph 6, he
would have found out that there was a net increase in the number of teachers. He should have read the survey more carefully.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): My hon. Friend rightly points out that there are many more teachers. Will he confirm that it remains the Government's priority to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in our schools, which is the main way of achieving a better education for our children?
Mr. Miliband: We in the Labour party fought the last election on a pledge to recruit at least 10,000 extra teachers into our education service and I am pleased to report to the House that, two years on from that election, there are now 13,000 more teachers in our schools.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): Is the Minister concerned that one of the strategies that schools follow in order to avoid redundancies in tight budgetary conditions is cutting spending in other areas? According to the Department's own figures, spending on information technology for schools in 2002–03 has fallen. Will the Minister seriously examine the impact on other areas of spend such as IT as well as the headline redundancy figures?
Mr. Miliband: Of course I recognise that it has been a seriously difficult year for some schools. I think there may be some confusion in the recording of figures on IT spending. Of course priorities have to be set at school level, but the hon. Gentleman would want to know that there are 1,600 more teachers in his own region than there were six years ago.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to the all-party delegation that he will receive from Hertfordshire next month, which wants to draw to his attention the fact that the budget shortfall in the county this year, stemming from the Government's funding arrangements, will result in the loss of funding equivalent to 70 teachers' posts? Next year, as the cushioning from those funding arrangements begins to disappear, Hertfordshire faces the loss of the equivalent of 600 teacher posts. Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to that all-party group?
Mr. Miliband: I always give sympathetic consideration to people who come to meet me, so I look forward to that meeting. I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted on threats of teacher redundancies. However, we are committed to working with Hertfordshire and every other local education authority to ensure that we use the money as well as possible to deliver the highest possible standards in Hertfordshire schools and those across the country.
Tuition Fees
12. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): What recent representations he has received on tuition fees. [128980]
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to tuition fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups in order to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in our White Paper "The Future of Higher Education".
Mr. Mackay : Will the Minister accept a little friendly advice from a former Government Deputy Chief Whip? The tuition fee legislation will end in tears. It is deeply unpopular in the House as well as among students and parents throughout the country. It would be wise to withdraw the legislation, so will the Minister guarantee that that will happen?
Alan Johnson: Would the right hon. Gentleman—whose attributes as a former Deputy Chief Whip I very much admire—take some advice from me? The Conservative party ought to be wearing sackcloth and ashes over their approach to the future of higher education funding. I cannot for the life of me understand how a serious political party can argue that the answer to the knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century is to contract and to disinvest in university education. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who marched through the Lobby in support of the Dearing report and the principle that graduates should make a contribution—an important principle—should now argue against that principle. We need take no advice from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will take some from me.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that top-up fees at some institutions and for some courses will deter the brighter students from those institutions and courses? What action will he take to prevent that?
Alan Johnson: I do not accept that philosophy. I would accept it in isolation from the rest of our proposals, which are the ending of up-front fees, the reintroduction of a maintenance grant, an income-contingent repayment basis, the threshold for the repayment of student loans going up to £15,000—which halves the amount that students will pay—and various other policies to help poorer students. For the first time, our policy will crowbar open higher education for poorer working-class students.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given that the 2001 Labour election manifesto stated:
- "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them",
Alan Johnson: Were we to ignore the situation in higher education and the fact that our major competitors—whether in America, China, India or elsewhere—are actively engaged in expanding their
higher education and concentrating more on their research, it would be total cowardice by the Government. We will not introduce those proposals until after the next election, and I relish the argument on the doorstep—this is the red meat of politics—against the proposals of Her Majesty's official Opposition for retraction and decline, and for our proposals for expansion and investment.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): The Minister may be aware of my letter in The Guardian yesterday, setting out my calculations as to what might happen with top-up fees. How much do the Government estimate will be spent in the financial year 2007–08 on the new £1,000 bursaries? I estimated that one third of students would receive those, costing about £250 million. I should like clarification from the Minister regarding those figures.
Alan Johnson: I have not read my hon. Friend's letter in The Guardian. [Hon. Members: " Why not?"] Indeed; I plead guilty to many failings and that is one of them. My hon. Friend's letters are always worth reading. We expect that at least one third of the extra money coming from fees will go to bursaries. We have calculated that around £300 million extra will go to bursaries, along with the other proposals to help poorer students to get to university.
Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): Much of the argument in favour of the Government's proposals has been couched in terms of the need to reinvest in the research base of UK universities. In that context, has the Minister seen the comments this week of Professor Andrew Cubie, the author of the Cubie report, who stated that the proposals would have the opposite effect, creating a gilded circle of universities in the south-east and denuding universities in the rest of the country of the staff, students and resources necessary to compete?
Alan Johnson: I read those comments from Andrew Cubie, who, incidentally, chaired the Scottish inquiry and rejected all Opposition arguments that graduates should not make a contribution. On the specific issue of research, we believe that with an additional investment of £1.25 billion in research and with the actions of our international competitors, we cannot just carry on with business as usual. We have shifted some £25 million, which is 2 per cent. of the research budget, but I accept the fears and concerns about the return to a binary situation because of those proposals. I am keen to debate the issue and to find a shared analysis, because we all want the same thing. We want excellent research and to ensure that we keep the best academics in this country.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): Is my hon. Friend aware that within the past few days several of our senior scientists, including Nobel prize winners, have made representations to the Government about the rapidly declining numbers of students in universities studying science, engineering and technology subjects? Will he consider my feelings and those of many others,
who fear that if differentially higher fees for studying those subjects are introduced, it will make matters much worse?
Alan Johnson: I do not accept that final point, but I accept that we have a problem—and a job to do—with encouraging more youngsters to study science. An important element of that will be the new GCSE, 21st century science, on which we are working. Several initiatives are being followed across the board to ensure that we get more students interested in science. The Roberts report said that one of the main problems was that science was perceived as being dull, and we need to work on that as well as the other initiatives to address the important problem that my hon. Friend raises.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |