| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Primary School Funding (Leicestershire)
3. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab): What recent representations he has received about the level of funding available to Leicestershire primary schools in 2004-05; and if he will make a statement. [154512]
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): We have received few recent representations about funding for primary schools in Leicestershire for 2004–05. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals to restore stability and certainty to school funding include an increase in all authorities' school formula spending share of at least 5 per cent. per pupil next year—that is what Leicestershire will receive. In addition, Leicestershire will receive £3.7 million of transitional grant, which must be used to help schools in specific financial difficulties to balance their budgets by 2006–07.
David Taylor : The quality of education in Leicestershire primary schools has been transformed by extra Government investment since 1997, but can the Minister understand local frustration that the higher standards, improved buildings and the provision of more and better paid staff are significantly constrained by a grant settlement that leaves us the least well funded local education authority in the land? We are 7.5 per cent. behind the average shire county, and the position is worsening. Will my hon. Friend meet local Members of Parliament to discuss our anomalous position and review the Leicestershire internal distribution formula?
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend has been a doughty and effective campaigner for extra funding for Leicestershire. He recently attended an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), when we discussed the specific needs in Leicestershire, which is, overall, a prosperous county, but has particular areas of need. Of course I will meet him and other Leicestershire Members of Parliament who are worried about the matter. However, I am glad that he acknowledges the increased funding and the base for moving forward.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): I am sorry to tell the Minister that, notwithstanding the assurances
that the Secretary of State gave last summer, Leicestershire's problems have not gone away. Local headlines read, "Schools in cash crisis". Primary schools in Leicestershire are funded £4,000 per pupil less than the best-funded authority. If that is untrue, the Minister should take it up with the Leicester Mercury. Is it the case that schools that balanced their budgets through all the problems last year will not receive any transitional funding? That means that schools that managed to balance their budgets on the promise of more cake this year now have to lay off staff.
Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman was doing well until he asked me to compare Leicestershire with the Isles of Scilly, which leads to the figure of £4,000 that he cited. He knows that there has been an increase of 41 per cent. per pupil in funding for schools in Leicestershire. That is £950 extra per pupil per year compared with 1996–97. I acknowledge that there are some substantial difficulties this year and, of course, we are determined to address them. However, I am convinced that the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Gentleman last July will be effected.
Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): I declare a slight interest in that my son has just started at St. Bartholomew's school in my village, an excellent primary school. Both as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough and as a concerned parent, therefore, I take a great interest in these matters. I want to reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), because at that school he will receive £600 a head more than in 1997. We therefore recognise the advance that has been made. Given the difficulties that occurred last year, however, and the £3.75 million grant, we recognise that we are now moving on again and once again getting an above-inflation increase in the county. The difficulties last year have caused real problems across the county, however. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to an urgent meeting so that we can look properly at the transitional relief that has been given to the county, and see whether we can work a way through to make sure that we build on the stability that we have had since 1997.
Mr. Miliband: Obviously, I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend says. We share responsibility with local government both for raising and distributing funds. How local formulae distribute money to different parts of the local education authority is a key issue for parents, pupils and teachers. Of course, I am happy to discuss that with him. We are of course keen to help with anything that we can do to ensure that the transitional grant flows to the right places.
Student Finance
4. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): What plans he has made for financial support for part-time students in higher education. [154513]
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): More money is being invested in part-time students. As a result, the number who will get help with their fees should more than double. From 2004–05, low-income, part-time students
will qualify for a course grant of £250 and a fee grant of up to £575 a year. The part-time sector makes a valuable contribution to our widening participation agenda, and the needs of part-time students will continue to be taken into account as we develop student support policy further.
Mrs. Campbell : That is indeed welcome news and will be greatly appreciated by the 35 per cent. of students at Anglia polytechnic university who are mature part-time students. Can my hon. Friend tell me, however, whether his future plans for higher education will include the abolition of up-front fees for part-time students as well as full-time students, as well as access to the generous maintenance loans that he also proposes for full-time students?
Alan Johnson: There are couple of points there. First, for mature full-time students, the grant is particularly important because all that they could access previously was a loan, on which an age limit applied. Now, however, that does not apply to the grant, so some of those mature students will qualify for a grant, whereas they did not qualify for a loan. On fee remission, it would be enormously expensive, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, for us to introduce fee remission for 42 per cent. of the higher education student population. Nevertheless, our current focus on part-time students and, with the passage of the Bill, the facility for a fee remission system, which does not exist at present, will be enormously helpful. Finally, in terms of extra help for part-time students, we do not currently know much about their difficulties because they have not been included in any previous student income and expenditure survey. From this year, they will be included for the first time, which will help us to identify their specific problems and to include them in future proposals for assistance with grants and loans.
University Science Departments
5. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): What representations he has received on the closure of science departments in universities. [154514]
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Both Ministers and officials have discussed this issue with a number of interested bodies and individuals, including some vice-chancellors. I have also received correspondence from several hon. Members.
Dr. Iddon : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the quickening pace of the closure of science, engineering and technology departments? Recently, for example, the closure has been announced of chemistry departments at King's college London, Queen Mary college London, and now the prestigious department at Swansea. It is not just a matter of falling numbers, and increased tuition fees will not end those closures. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend look at the high cost of maintaining SET departments, at the damage that the research assessment exercise has already done, and at the ratio of Higher Education Funding Council for England
funding between arts and humanities courses, SET courses and medical courses, which I understand is currently 1:1.7:4?
Mr. Clarke: I will look at all the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I pay respect to his consistent campaigning on this issue. I do not accept his phrase "the quickening pace", although I am aware of the particular proposals that he mentioned. During the period 1994–95 to 2002, total enrolments in full-time science-based first degrees in UK higher education institutions increased by 12 per cent., from 328,000 students to 377,000. What that hides is a varying pattern. Chemistry has been studied in the same number of universities in that time. Materials science, physics, oceanography and combinations of physical sciences have had a reduction in the number of departments. Astronomy, geology, environmental and other sciences, archaeology and geography, however, have had an increase. It is therefore a moving pattern, but I am happy to look at the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that engineering, science and technical subjects are not seen as being as sexy as some arts subjects, which seem to attract all the funding? We are looking for value-added employment, which means that we need technicians, scientists and engineers. Is it not therefore about time to incentivise our youngsters into universities to study those subjects? If we do not do so, there will be a skills shortage at the top end, and this country will come a cropper.
Mr. Clarke: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a short tutorial on the action that we are taking in each of those areas. One reason why we have proposed our foundation degree programme is to strengthen the important engineering and science base. He should also appreciate the shifting movements between subjects: yes, it is—in his words—about making those subjects sexier; yes, it is about specialist schools to encourage engineering, science and technology; and yes, it is about a better relationship between the science and engineering industries and education. All those measures are necessary and they are all happening. We will continue to take them further.
Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members do not view his reply with equanimity? In particular, there has been a catastrophic decline in people doing A-level mathematics, which is a feeder subject for engineering and other sciences. As a result, the figures that he has just quoted on those studying science contain fewer and fewer people with advanced mathematical skills. Does he accept that many students think that maths is much more difficult than other subjects, and will he make sure that that perception is rectified?
Mr. Clarke: I take my hon. Friend's point and do not view the situation with equanimity. We commissioned a major inquiry by Professor Adrian Smith on mathematics education, which will report in about 10 days' time, and it will reinforce my hon. Friend's concerns about the quality of higher-level mathematics
education, so Professor Smith and I take his point. The report will point to a number of important steps that we must to take to rectify the long-term decline in those skills. There is no equanimity because we think that the matter is burningly important.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): The funding system that the Government are currently trying to introduce is likely to put enormous pressure on universities—particularly the less prestigious universities—only to run courses where they can charge full top-up fees and which are comparatively cheap to put on. Does the Secretary of State accept that the new scheme is likely to lead to increased acceleration in the rate of closure of science departments?
Mr. Clarke: As a matter of fact, I do not accept that in any respect whatsoever. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised the issue of the money available for particular courses through the HEFCE formula, which is a key factor for universities. We must address that point, which is why I told my hon. Friend that I would examine those particular points. The Higher Education Bill, which is currently in Committee, will have a positive effect rather than the negative effect implied by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |