| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates etc.) and Order [29 October 2002].
ESTIMATES, 2004–05
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
(1) further resources, not exceeding £5,665,964,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 466,
(2) a further sum, not exceeding £5,144,950,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
ESTIMATES, 2004–05
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31st March 2005—
(1) further resources, not exceeding £195,591,528,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 466, HC 467, HC 468 and HC 469,
(2) a further sum, not exceeding £177,378,551,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
(3) limits as set out in HC 466, HC 468 and HC 469 be set on appropriations in aid.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, John Healey and Ruth Kelly do prepare and bring it in.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2005 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31 March 2005; to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 28 June 2004, and to be printed. [Bill No.121.]
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of the unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 26th May 2004 from the Ministry of Defence on the Council Joint Action on the establishment of a European Defence Agency; endorses the Government's support for the Council Joint Action to create the European Defence Agency and its swift implementation; and supports the Government's wider aims in seeking a key role for the Agency in the development of European Union military capabilities.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th June,—
(1) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to London schools may continue for three hours or until Four o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and
(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than Seven o'clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1397), dated 19th May 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
PETITIONS
Hospitals (St. Albans)
6.2 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans) (Lab): I bring a petition from many thousands of residents of St. Albans and the surrounding areas which
declares that there is a need for a new acute hospital and centre of excellence—
to include a cancer centre—to serve the community of central Hertfordshire and
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1537
that there should be a medical school linked to the University of Hertfordshire and that St. Albans City Hospital should continue to provide non-acute services.
We are grateful for the help of the St. Albans Observer in this petition.
The petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Pets
6.3 pm
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to present a petition of more than 1,000 signatures which have been collected by my constituent Miss Murielle Elliot of 7 Foxhill drive, Rossendale. The petition of residents of the Rossendale valley
Declares that a great many pets—
have been stolen from their owners in the Rossendale area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make provision for the protection of pets, and for the return of stolen pets to their rightful owners.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1538
Schools Reorganisation (Northumberland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
6.4 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): I am glad to have this opportunity to focus the Minister's attention on education in Northumberland and in particular to seek some clarification and help for parents and communities as they consider the difficult issues of reorganisation that they now face. Parents, children and school staff and communities in Northumberland face the prospect of a massive reorganisation of schools, which on present plans will change the age range of every school in the county and will require a substantial building programme. It has generated a major public campaign of opposition, with many thousands of supporters in the county's middle schools, and different views have been put forward by some of the high school and first school teachers and parents.
The background to all that can be found in a critical Ofsted report on the Northumberland education authority, which stood in marked contrast to the very good Ofsted reports on many of the schools threatened by that reorganisation. The report referred to the fact that the county has one of the highest levels of surplus places in the country and argued that that cannot be explained entirely by the fact that there are many very small schools serving isolated rural areas, especially in my constituency.
The report criticises the county's past attempts to deal with the problem by ill thought-out school closures, which were rejected by the adjudicator. It says that
"this is not an LEA which evaluates its own performance rigorously".
"the LEA does not engage sufficiently with its schools or with the local authorities to find innovative or imaginative solutions to the problems it faces."
In addition, Northumberland and its schools, which already suffer from a poor standard spending assessment that is 8.5 per cent. below the national average, have been turned down again and again in bids for education action zones and specialist school status. The impression given was that the Department for Education and Skills would not help Northumberland unless something drastic was done. And it was.
The chief education officer of Gateshead and a team of officials were drafted in to take over on a temporary basis, and a massive reorganisation plan was produced. It involved the replacement of the county's three-tier system with a two-tier system, replacing transfer at 9 and 13 with transfer at 11. The plan depends on £270 million in funding from the Government's "Building Schools for the Future" programme and on capital receipts from the sale of school sites.
Following widespread public discussion and in the face of strong opposition from middle schools, including a 35,000-signature petition, the county's executive voted in favour of the two-tier system. At the full council on 9 June, the proposals were again carried, but with an opposition amendment making two-tier the preferred option but putting the three-tier system out for
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1539
consultation alongside it. The Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses have indicated an intention to move to a two-tier system.
I have much experience of the county's present system. Both my children were educated in it throughout their education. My first wife, who died six years ago, taught extensively in the county's middle schools and high schools. Middle schools have considerable advantages. In my experience, most of them are very happy schools, with an atmosphere of enthusiasm among both staff and children. The Rothbury Church of England middle school produced a wonderful video as part of its campaign that vividly portrayed the shared enthusiasm of staff, parents, community and children in support of the school, and a generally enthusiastic attitude towards education during the years between 9 and 13.
Most of the middle schools have good or excellent Ofsted reports and they provide good opportunities for the oldest children to take on positions of responsibility. The most recent visit I made to Berwick middle school was to attend a meeting of the school council, which consists entirely of pupils. No staff were present at all. The pupils engaged in a mature and carefully thought-out discussion with me about the advantages of middle schools. Many of them were exercising responsibility in the school at the ages of 12 and 13, or in their classes at lower ages. It reminded me forcibly that in such schools those who take responsibility do so at a relatively young age. From my observation of those children, that equips them well for later school and adult life.
Another advantage of middle schools is that because they were nearly all built as secondary modern schools, they are spacious, with good facilities for science, craft subjects and sport. The presence of specialist teachers benefits the age groups from 9 to 11.
In rural areas, transfer at 13 is felt by parents to be much better than having 11 and 12-year-olds travel 15, 20 or even 30 miles each way every day to high school, waiting at town bus stations and changing transport, sometimes several times in a journey. That advantage was vividly expressed in a letter from a Rothbury parent, which states:
"In the case of rural children there will be social exclusion from an earlier age if this 2-tier idea is forced upon us because they will not be able to access out-of-school activities from 11 instead of 13 years of age. Do you know that when our children undertake after-school activities at High school in Morpeth, this can mean parents undertaking 40–64 mile round trips to pick them up from school?"
"Our 11 year olds will be travelling between 1 h 50 min and 4 hrs a day."
As the letter says, that will mean that they face days longer than those recommended by the European working time directive.
So why change? If the system is to be changed, parents need to be convinced by the educational arguments, not the money arguments. The Department's answers to parliamentary questions from me and from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) are studiously non-committal on the educational case for and against middle schools. The LEA has produced data suggesting that too many
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1540
children make too little progress between the ages of seven and 13, and high schools argue that transfer in the middle of key stages 2 and 3 is disruptive and at odds with the national curriculum and the exam timetable.
Under a two-tier system, primary schools would be wholly responsible for key stages 1 and 2 and high schools for everything after that. Some of our high schools have had serious problems in raising achievement levels and their heads believe that they would do better if they had the full age range and the new staffing and accommodation opportunities that reorganisation could provide.
Many first schools see the change as a lifesaver for village schools. Back in the 1970s, many communities objected to the creation of middle schools because it took two age groups from local schools, making many of them liable to closure. It also involved nine-year-olds making long journeys to the new middle schools. However, there is wide interest in the federal arrangements for some small rural schools suggested in the county council's proposals, which build on the county's successful work in recent years building up clusters of small rural schools that work together and have some shared support teaching. The idea was pushed back by lack of funding but it was extremely successful and could be developed under the federal ideas for small schools. It was also accepted by some of the people who were opposed to the change to the two-tier system.
Parents fear that the change is too much driven by arguments about buildings and money. Surplus places are clearly at the heart of it. Over the years, we have had many arguments about whether calculations on surplus places are either fair or realistic, especially in villages where the school's facilities are used as a vital resource for the whole community.
We should remember that buildings were a key factor in the decision to introduce middle schools in Northumberland in the first place. Most of those schools are in former secondary modern buildings that could not be utilised effectively in the 11 to 18 comprehensive system, which was being introduced with very limited capital expenditure. Those were the newest buildings that the education authority had on its hands and part of the motive for creating middle schools was to make use of them, although they then became the focus of real commitment from head teachers who believed in middle schools as an extremely effective part of the system.
The present plan depends on releasing £31 million through capital receipts from the sale of school sites to fund the primary end of the system. However, it is difficult to see how that can be achieved while Northumberland is so severely restricted in the amount of house building that is permitted. The proposed figures allow only 30 houses a year in Berwick borough and between 65 and 70 a year in Alnwick district. That leaves the sale of sites dependent on hope value that may not be realised.
Central Government funding from the "Building Schools for the Future" programme will be essential for the building and extension of high schools. For example, Alnwick will require a new high school and major investment will be needed at the Berwick high school site. Parents need to know whether the Government will
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1541
put their weight and their funding behind the reorganisation. If the money is not forthcoming, the whole scheme will collapse and there will be educational chaos. Bearing in mind that every proposed closure and every change in the status of a school can be challenged through the formal statutory process, and that parents will—understandably and rightly—use those challenges if they are not satisfied that they will get a better system after reorganisation, the Government must provide reassurance and answer some crucial questions. If they do not, the whole process will drag on. Indeed, on that point, some people have suggested that the whole thing should be put on ice while we hold the referendum on regional assemblies and reach a decision as to whether Northumberland will become a single-tier area or be divided into two areas.
I am not in favour of deferring the matter, because whether the result was a new single authority or two new authorities, they would face similar decisions and probably reach similar conclusions, with the added complication that, if two authorities were created, there would be movement across the boundary between the two areas, as well as all the upheaval of creating two education authorities. As education would be split between two unitary authorities, instead of being a whole-county responsibility, a significant number of my constituents would have to travel from one of the new proposed authorities to the other. So there are too many complications and disadvantages in deferring the issue until a possible local government reorganisation. We must face up to the decision and produce a timetable that can be achieved, perhaps based on one that the county has proposed. That can be attempted only if there is some confidence that the end result will be better and parents' anxieties and fears can be allayed—so far, those of many have not.
Parents need answers from the Government on key questions. Are officials at the Department for Education and Skills telling Northumberland county council that there will be no money for new schools unless they get rid of middle schools? That is the impression that has been pretty firmly left by the county council, although the chairman of the education committee denied that when I put it to him on the radio this morning. The story is that those in Whitehall have said, "Sort your system out, or you will continue to be unsuccessful"—as unsuccessful as Northumberland has been in many of its recent bids. At least, the Department is virtually on record as saying, "Unless you do something about your surplus places by this or some other means, you will get no additional money for new schools." Are the Government putting on pressure? If so, and they have good reason for doing so, they should tell us.
Do the Government believe that the middle school system is less educationally effective than transfer at 11 years? If so, is there any research evidence for that view that would convince the parents who are so committed to middle schools? If the county undertakes the enormous task of reorganisation, will the money be there to build the new high schools, or could all this be in vain? What a disaster it would be if we embarked on that horrifyingly difficult and complicated process and, somehow, the money was not forthcoming at the end of the day.
If the first schools become schools for five to 11-year-olds, how will they provide the facilities for science, technology and sport that have been available to nine to
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1542
11-year-olds in the middle schools? The first schools do not have provision for that age group and so do not have developed science and technology facilities—even the rooms, let alone the staffing—or the extensive sports facilities that nine to 11-year-olds can now benefit from in the middle schools.
What if the county decides that some areas must get special treatment? If the county accepts that areas such as Rothbury and Wooler, for example, need to keep middle schools because of the travelling distance, even if the rest of the county changes, will the Department accept a mixed system and still give Northumberland the funds that it needs for new schools? Other places in other constituencies might be candidates for that—for example, Bellingham and Allendale.
Will rural pathfinder bids be possible to provide resources for special schemes at rural schools? As well as the possibility of retaining middle schools or combined first and middle schools in some rural communities, some other ideas are forthcoming. At Belford, for example, a learning village centre of excellence is proposed for three to 14-year-olds, with youth and adult learning facilities as well—an exciting and pioneering idea, making use of existing buildings, while enabling children to stay in the village. Such ideas could benefit from rural pathfinder funds, but we need to know whether that is a serious possibility if such things are to be pursued.
Parents, communities and the teaching staff of schools are facing difficult choices against the background of suggestions and hints that the abolition of middle schools is, in practice, a condition of future funding. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what resources are on offer to carry through any change, thus a great deal of anxiety. Ministers need to come clean about their attitudes, so that there can be a genuine and open debate about which system is best for Northumberland's children and young people.
I ask the Minister to put himself in the position of a parent of children starting at a middle school in Northumberland and to consider what it would take to convince him that losing the advantages of that system will be effectively compensated for in those children's educational experience by something very significantly better. That is what he and the authority must do between them if such a change is to be carried through.
6.19 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |