Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), just as I followed him around India a few weeks ago. I found rather more in his speech than I expected with which to agree, although I did not think much of his opening remarks. He knows as well as I do that the stability we now enjoy is a product of the hard-won supply-side reforms of the 1980s and the economic policies of the early 1990s, and that the pensions crisis of which he rightly spoke is entirely the making of the present Government.

I want to discuss two themes that are central to the Budget, education and international competitiveness. They are linked by the key theme of the skills that we need to make the United Kingdom fit for purpose in the 21st century. I will not succeed in saying all that I hoped to say in 10 minutes, but I have been helped by two excellent speeches—by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who spoke of the skills issues that face
27 Mar 2006 : Column 615
our country, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke of the challenges of globalisation and the response that we should make.

I wish to make three key points, the first of which is local. Worcestershire schools suffer monstrous discrimination, and the Budget does nothing to change that. The second is national. As the hon. Member for Brent, East said, the Chancellor was right to emphasise the importance of skills and education, but I doubt that his approach is radical enough to rise to the challenge. The third is international, and relates to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. The country has not yet woken up to the challenge of globalisation and, I fear, is sleepwalking complacently towards mediocrity.

My conclusion is that the Budget does some sensible things and many foolish ones, such as introducing retrospection in inheritance tax rules and causing massive inconvenience by bringing forward the date for completion of income tax self-assessment forms. It simply does not match the scale of what is happening in the wider world: as I have said, it is a Budget for mediocrity, not excellence. It is a Budget of councils, reviews, consultations and even national debates, but not of the action that we need in order to take on the world.

Why is that? The Chancellor fails the test of the greatness to which he aspires because he is a compulsive meddler. He also thinks that he knows how to spend our money better than we do. His dogmatic insistence that the growing levels of public spending—or investment, as he mischievously describes it to make it sound even more virtuous—are compatible with our country's international competitiveness is simply wrong. We should be sharing the proceeds of growth between increased spending on public services and tax reductions, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly proposes.

I am afraid that, for all his fine phrases, the Chancellor is not a big-picture man. He is a micro-manager, and micro-management often makes life very difficult for business. It sometimes brings disaster in its wake for enterprising companies. Let us look at what the Chancellor has done to Evesham Technology in my constituency. There is a long letter on his desk—I hoped to quote it at length, but I have not enough time—from the finance director. In his persuasive letter, he says that the home computing initiative

—from income tax—

It has gone.

—for delivery of the system—

27 Mar 2006 : Column 616

The scheme was successful, however, so Evesham Technology

to demonstrate it, but both investments are worthless today.

The tragedy is that the company was

The Chancellor's micro-management is to blame—constant, endless tinkering with the tax system, instead of the stability that we crave.

My other local point relates to education. I am a reasonable man and I freely admit that school spending has risen sharply under this Government. Capital investment is higher that it was in 1997—owing, of course, to the golden economic inheritance of this Government, which I hoped would have provided a Conservative Government with the same ability to increase expenditure on education. I welcome what has happened, but I do not welcome the way in which Worcestershire pupils are being left behind in spending per pupil. I complained about that under Conservative Governments in the past, but it has become worse under this Government. In 1997, the cash gap between funding per pupil in Worcestershire and the national average was £150; now, it is more than £400, and it is a whopping £840 in the case of neighbouring Birmingham.

Given that the new Secretary of State for Education and Skills was educated in Worcestershire and that the Minister for Schools is a Worcestershire MP, I thought that things might get better, but I was wrong. Their plan for the next two years is for Worcestershire again to have below-average increases in funding per pupil, thereby making a difficult situation worse. What is more, if I have read the Red Book correctly, propositions for the distribution of funding as listed in paragraph 6.58 mean that local education authorities that already get high funding levels will get still higher ones.

I have wondered why that should be so. Why should this discrimination against my county continue? I thought that perhaps those in London just did not understand the scale of urban and rural deprivation in my county. Perhaps they view it as some rural paradise where affluent upper-middle-class parents send their children to fine private schools and live in large mansions and farmhouses, far from the gritty reality of urban Britain. Perhaps they do not understand the level of poverty and deprivation in Redditch, Worcester, Wyre Forest and, yes, in my constituency of Mid-Worcestershire. How else can we explain the bewildering paradox whereby we are considered too rich to get a decent amount of cash for our kids, and too poor to qualify for the area cost adjustment?

My suspicions were confirmed in a dramatic way by a presentation only two weeks ago by Dugald Sanderman, joint head of school and LEA funding for the F40 group of local authorities. He chose to illustrate their funding needs through a picture of a large house in leafy Evesham—ironically, it is, I think, lived in by a Labour supporter—set against a background of tower blocks. In another picture, taken from a marketing brochure for the market towns of Worcestershire, the lovely sights of my constituency, which I invite every
27 Mar 2006 : Column 617
Member to come and see, are set against a bleak urban landscape. It took me just a few seconds on the internet this morning to find a house in Birmingham that would have served just as well as a counterbalance to that urban shot. It has six bedrooms, four bathrooms, four reception rooms, a reception hall with library, a gallery landing with seating area and a heated swimming pool, and is selling for £1.4 million.

That was the most dishonest presentation of the reasons for education funding distribution that I have ever seen. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud of it, and Dugald Sanderman should hang his head in shame for making such misleading presentations. It was of course Goebbels who said that if one tells a lie big enough and keeps repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. I will not let this lie gain any ground. It must be squashed. We need a fairer deal and I hope that it will be forthcoming.

The hon. Member for Brent, East spoke well on national skills and I share her concern. I shall restrict my remarks to one simple point. Lord Leitch said at the time of his interim report:

Mr. Love: One great concern about skills training is where the funding will come from for a major expansion. If we look at who funds, and who benefits from, skills training, we see that employers are at the top of the agenda. Does the hon. Gentleman support the view that employers must make a greater contribution to skills training?

Next Section IndexHome Page