---

School Funding

3. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): If he will take steps to reduce variations in pupil funding per head between counties. [181594]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The current system, which was the subject of widespread consultation, reflects the relative need of counties and metropolitan areas alike. Our priority is to restore stability and predictability to the school funding system, and we will not be changing it during 2004–05 or 2005–06.

Mr. Luff : We in Worcestershire are always immensely grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he listens to our arguments, and for the commitment he has made to go on listening to them. Admittedly we are always disappointed by the outcome, but at least he listens.

Sadly, however, the most recent detailed academic evidence in favour of a change in the balance of funding between Worcestershire and its neighbouring counties was simply passed on by the Minister's Department to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, unopened and unconsidered. Can the Minister reassure me that he has not changed his policy of constructive engagement with us on these important issues—or has the ODPM heavy mob had a quiet word with him at Admiralty arch, telling him to stay shtum and turn the other way while our children and schools are mugged for the cash they are owed?

Mr. Miliband: The temptations of constructive engagement with the hon. Gentleman and his friends are so great that I certainly would not want to turn away from the dialogue that has been initiated.

I am sure that the whole House is intimately aware of the details of the Oswald and Blanchflower study of Worcestershire and its labour force survey. No doubt the House is also aware that the new earnings survey on which we base the area cost adjustment deals with a much wider sample, and is therefore considered more representative by many academic commentators. None the less, I look forward to continuing the discussion in this forum and elsewhere.
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 423
 

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a new formula since April 2003. It is, without doubt, simpler and clearer than its predecessor. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that a league table of per pupil funding across the country shows that the gap between the best and the worst funding has widened under the new system? Does that not mean that it is deficient in justice and equity?

Mr. Miliband: Having acknowledged the existence of constructive engagement with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I feel that I should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning in the interests of Staffordshire. He will, I think, be as pleased as I am that Staffordshire's per pupil increase in the school formula funding share this year is 6.3 per cent. above the national average, thus narrowing the gap between it and other authorities. I am sure he will also agree that it is important for all school funding to be based on fair and transparent criteria, rather than arbitrary targets. It is on that basis that we will continue to make progress.

Truancy

4. Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): What progress he has made in meeting his target to reduce truancy. [181595]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): This is the first Government to put attendance at the heart of their policies for improving standards and pupil achievement. Our measures provide both support for pupils and their parents and sanctions to reinforce parental responsibility. The year 2002–03 saw school attendance at a record high, and 1,300 truants back at school each day.

Mr. Djanogly: Despite £600 million of taxpayers' money having been spent on reducing truancy since 1997, secondary school truancy has shot up from 450,000 pupils in 1997 to 630,000 in 2003. Is that not another fine example of a Government who know how to spend very well, but how to manage very poorly?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has read out very effectively the briefing from central office. I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that attendance in our schools is at a record high and that those who are truanting do so less frequently. There are other realities, however, including the fact that when we give more priority to the issue of attendance, heads are far less likely to authorise a level of attendance that they previously authorised. In this country, 50 per cent. of truancy takes place with the knowledge and collusion of parents. This Government are tackling that problem in a serious, fundamental and long-term way by reforming the curriculum so that it is more relevant to the needs of individual young people and by offering individual support to pupils and families who have genuine challenges and problems, but also by ensuring that there is enforcement where parents are not fulfilling their responsibilities. That is a long-term sustained strategy to tackle truancy in a serious way.
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 424
 

Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): In addition to those very important truancy-specific measures to which my hon. Friend has just alluded, which are certainly having their impact in my constituency, is it not the case that children stay in school if they are interested in what is going on there? They need to value that experience, and our focus on and success in improving teaching, learning and skill leadership is also having a significant impact.

Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. That is central to raising school standards, to improving the leadership of schools and to having a positive ethos in every school in every part of the country. We must have a far more flexible curriculum to turn young people on to learning. The 14 to 16 flexibility programme has been a major success, and we are reducing the statutory core curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds from next September and introducing a new young apprenticeship. Central to the Tomlinson review on the future of 14 to 19 education is the need to ensure that we have pathways through the system for young people that motivate and inspire them, and do not differentiate between vocational and academic education. It is extremely important that we tackle not just the symptoms of truancy but their causes, by reforming the curriculum, tailoring education to suit the needs of every individual young person and ensuring that behaviour and discipline are central to our agenda of raising school standards.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): Will the Minister accept that the majority of the 1 million pupils who played truant last year were teenagers who voted with their feet because they were dissatisfied with the relevance to them of the education that they were receiving? Will he therefore take it from the Conservatives that we are genuinely willing, despite our differences on other educational matters, to work with him and Mike Tomlinson on providing a 14 to 19 curriculum that can survive a change of Government and provide stability to teachers and others? Will he and his ministerial colleagues undertake to work with all parties in the House to ensure that we can do that constructively?

Mr. Lewis: I strongly welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to trying to achieve consensus on a new 14 to 19 phase of education that will stand the test of time and represent the best interests of every single young person who accesses the education system in this country. Yes, of course we will work with members of other political parties and with people with expertise in this field. It was brave of the Government to set up the Tomlinson group, external from and independent of Government, to make credible, acceptable proposals so that we have, for the first time in this country, a 14 to 19 phase of education that inspires young people and also gets rid of this country's historic divide between academic and vocational education. That is central to ensuring that we do something about the fact that far too many young people in this country drop out at 17. That is the great challenge facing the English education system, and I would welcome a political consensus to address that.
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 425
 

Construction Skills

5. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): What plans he has to improve skills in the construction sector. [181597]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We have set up a network of employer-led sector skills councils to work with the Government to meet the skill needs of their sectors, and Construction Skills—the sector skills council for construction—was licensed in September 2003. Construction has been designated as one of four priority sectors, and a new sector skills agreement will set out how the sector skills council and other partners will maintain and improve the sector's skills base.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he pay tribute to the excellent work being done in my constituency by West Anglia college, which, under the first-class leadership of its principal, Peter Stewart, is providing a very large number of construction skill places in East Anglia? Given the recent Learning and Skills Council survey, which revealed that skills shortages in construction could be running as high as 38 per cent., does the Minister agree that it is vital that trained and motivated plumbers and electricians be attracted into the further education sector as instructors and lecturers? To do so is obviously very difficult, given that they can earn so much in the private sector. What is the Minister going to do to address this situation, and how will he ensure that FE colleges can pay competitive salaries?

Mr. Lewis: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am also proud to say that we have a record 255,000 young people participating in apprenticeships this year, which is a source of celebration but not complacency. Rebuilding vocational education is not just about aspiring to offer that route to young people; it is also about investing in the capital infrastructure, which is why the centres of vocational excellence are so important, and why specialist status is vital. It is also important that we recruit into our education system people with vocational skills—the trainers—who are able to transfer their expertise and knowledge to young people.

This Government are proud of the fact that we have put a record level of investment into FE year on year in the past three years. We regard FE as absolutely central to providing a demand-led education and training system that will be able to respond to the needs of all sectors of our economy, and especially of crucial sectors such as construction.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I commend the Government on making construction a priority in the sector skills council. Perhaps the Minister will commend my local authority on its housing stock transfer initiative, which will ensure that the young people who are taken on are trained specifically in construction trades and skills to maintain that housing stock. Does he agree that there is no more important time to encourage
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 426
 
the development of such skills, given that we are witnessing the biggest ever investment in new building, such as housing, schools and hospitals?

Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This Government's investment in capital infrastructure is absolutely central to the social and economic regeneration of the nation, but we also need to ensure that we have the necessary skills to meet the demand. One key issue is to ensure that the Government and the public sector meet their responsibilities in terms of the people whom they employ and the use of their procurement power. That is why, when the Government announce next week the progress that has been made one year on from the skills strategy, we will focus on the progress that we have made in meeting our responsibilities as a procurer of goods and services, and as an employer.

Mr. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): The construction industry, as has already been made clear, faces a severe skills shortage, which has led to recruitment problems, higher operating costs, lost orders and delayed product development. While the construction industry is a core economic component, it is evident that across the economy, business is facing chronic skills shortages. To date, the Government have had little impact in this regard, and employers and colleges remain dislocated. The Learning and Skills Council is currently submerged in bureaucracy, and it provides inadequate, poorly structured and over-complex funding. When will the Government listen to real business and respond to its demand for greater focus on basic skills, more work-based training, and funding for learning, not just qualification—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that the consensus has just come to a grinding halt. I am delighted, actually, because I am not too comfortable when there is consensus between the Government and the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the fact that a record number of young people are undertaking apprenticeships is a source of celebration. He should also recognise that this Government—through our key stage 3 strategy, our reform of 14 to 19 education and the new GCSEs in vocational subjects—are finally addressing the problem of young people being disengaged from education far too early.

The hon. Gentleman should also welcome the fact that we are moving the education and training system from a supply-driven to a demand-led system. Instead of having the education and training world developing courses in one place and the needs of business and employers being somewhere else, we are bringing them together so we end up ensuring that the education and training system is able to respond to the skills gaps that employers tell us about.

My final point is that the skills White Paper that we published last year was based on a year-long consultation with business in every region of the country. That is why business has welcomed it, because it responds to every single concern that business raised about the historical inadequacies of our training system.
 
1 Jul 2004 : Column 427
 
I ask the hon. Gentleman to join the consensus that exists in this country regarding the development of a skills strategy.

---