| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 11 and 12.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),
22 Feb 2005 : Column 283
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
That the draft Regulatory Reform (Trading Stamps) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
(1) the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)); and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Heppell.]
22 Feb 2005 : Column 284
Church Schools (Dorset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Heppell.]
8.25 pm
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): The subject of the debate is of much interest in my constituency, particularly in the Blandford area. May I express my thanks to the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt. Rev. David Stancliffe, who is a member of the other place, to his director of education for Salisbury diocese, Mr. Simon Tong, and to the director of education for Dorset county council, David Goddard, for their help in preparing me for this debate.
Capital funding is applied to voluntary-aided schools via three routes. There is the devolved formula capital, which is allocated directly to schools by formula on an annual basis for their discretionary use on a range of capital items. That is typically about £25,000 for a primary school and £90,000 for a secondary school at current rates. There is then the more important local education authority co-ordinated voluntary-aided programme, known as LCVAP, which is allocated annually to local education authorities by formula and distributed by them and the dioceses for expenditure on agreed middle-range capital projects, usually up to about £400,000 each. There is a restricted number of projects annually under that programme. The third route is the targeted capital funding, which is allocated centrally against bids by the local education authority and the dioceses for major capital projects.
The main capital baseline for voluntary-aided schools covers the LCVAP and the targeted capital funding. The devolved formula capital is funded in addition to those. That is a complex system that has, I am told, proved difficult for the Department for Education and Skills to control and monitor. The annual announcements have become increasingly erratic in their timing, often coming months after their scheduled dates.
I am told that a point was reached in June last year at which no further funding could be allocated, a moratorium on targeted capital funding bids was called and the LCVAP allocations summarily reduced. Only the devolved formula capital continued unabated.
That has caused great problems for the dioceses and indirectly for the local education authorities. For example, my own Salisbury diocese is owed some £200,000 by the Department for outstanding works at Verwood Trinity Church of England first school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I understand that liability is accepted but that payment has not yet been approved because of lack of money in the VA capital budget.
Although that crisis has forced the setting up of a joint working group between the Department and the dioceses to create a more manageable system, and although the latest announcements by the Government indicate some cause for optimism, the current situation is extremely difficult. It will continue thus until greater clarity emerges.
The Salisbury diocese, which covers my constituency, has so many Church schools that any local education authority initiative that is not matched by voluntary-aided funding could result in a disparity of provision,
22 Feb 2005 : Column 285
even within the same town or area. Until now, the main driver of improvements to the diocesan building stock has been the LCVAP, but the national allocation has been drastically reduced in the current year and beyond. In 2003–04, it was £210 million; for 2004–05, it is £108 million; and in 2005–06 it will be £80 million. In 2006–07 and 2007–08, the estimated allocation is £66 million. The LCVAP allocation for Church schools in Dorset is £0.6 million for 2005–06, £0.5 million for 2006–07 and £0.51 million for 2007–08. There were successful targeted capital funding bids in Dorset of £1.2 million in both 2003–04 and 2004–05, but no bids are allowed for 2005–06. It was only the diocese's ability to carry forward £1.1 million that enabled it even to look at any projects under the scheme. I understand that TCF bidding rounds will take place only every two years.
There has been a major crisis at Beachcroft primary school in Weymouth, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). However, he has made representations on this issue, so I do not want to dwell on it. Rather, I want to deal with the practical implications for major projects in my own constituency. Dorset local education authority is reorganising education in the Blandford area from three-tier to two-tier. That will incur significant building costs as first schools become primary schools.
The diocese and the local education authority committed to this reorganisation in the expectation that TCF would be available to them, as it was in the previous year for the reorganisation of schools in the Shaftesbury pyramid, which is also in my constituency, and for the reorganisation of schools just across the border in west Wiltshire and Salisbury, which feed the Shaftesbury upper school. In that situation, the LCVAP could have covered the costs if the TCF had not been granted, but the 2004–05 bidding round was cancelled without warning, the LCVAP allocation was halved and a Church schools' private finance initiative was axed. There is currently no funding stream in place for these school improvements.
The Archbishop Wake Church of England first school in Blandford needs some £2 million because it is moving site and taking over the premises of a former middle school. Blandford St. Mary first school needs £0.8 million, Durweston Church of England first school needs £0.5 million, and Spetisbury Hall and Slater's Church of England first school also needs £0.5 million. In summarising the situation in Blandford, I want to express my thanks to the head teachers of those four schools: Richard Chapman, of Archbishop Wake school, Judy Baker of Blandford St. Mary school, Neil Tarchetti of Durweston first school, and Sue Tipping of Spetisbury Hall and Slater's school.
Those four voluntary-aided schools are preparing for the change from a three-tier to a two-tier system. The effect will be that they change from first schools to primary schools, so they will have an extra two year groups of children and will need the resources, equipment and buildings to accommodate them.
The reorganisation was to be funded through the targeted capital funding money—I mentioned it earlier—for which the diocese of Salisbury bids to the Department for Education and Skills. However, the bids to that fund have been stopped this year and the
22 Feb 2005 : Column 286
system is currently under review. As a group of schools, they entered into the reorganisation on the understanding that the required capital works, which are considerable, would commence in the academic year 2005–06. Work starting at this time is essential, because it is when the reorganisation takes place and the time at which this group of schools has to start providing a first-class education for the additional older children.
Now that the funding has been withdrawn, the expected date for the completion of the work could be as late as 2008; without the targeted capital funding money, the diocese does not have the funds to carry out the work. That is particularly disturbing for a number of reasons. More than half the children in the Blandford pyramid are educated in voluntary-aided schools, and they will suffer from the lack of funding. As a pyramid of schools, they ensured complete unity and parity in the process up to now. The funding problem will prevent them from continuing in the same manner.
The reorganisation appears to fit in with the Government's education policy, but the funding is not secure to carry it through. The lack of parity is made worse as the local education authority appears to have other ways to fund the required works for its schools. That means that the Church schools are disadvantaged when the LEA initiates a reorganisation, as it does not have a duty to the Church schools to see that it is carried through successfully. The Department for Education and Skills demands that LEAs remove surplus capacity, but what happens when 50 per cent. of the schools are actually voluntary-aided? The LEA has a duty to reduce surplus accommodation, but no responsibility to the voluntary-aided schools.
I put these questions to the Minister. Why has this funding been reduced at a time when the Government claim that they are spending more on education? Where has the money gone? Why, when Dorset receives the lowest central Government grant of any English local education authority, is the problem compounded by the adverse treatment of the diocesan schools' budget? What hope can I give to my constituents?
8.37 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |