§ Queen's recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesI should like to raise one or two points about the money resolution.
We have the usual formula—that there are no net cost implications in the new Teacher Training Agency's assumption of certain functions exercised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Secretary of State and the teaching as a career unit. We are told also that other staffing needs should be offset in part by manpower savings at the Department for Education. I should like to know what is meant by the latter in circumstances in which substantial functions are being taken on by the Teacher Training Agency. Never before have we seen any savings, in terms of bureaucracy, under this magical terminology, but I suppose that there is always a first time. However, the House is entitled to some comment from the Minister about that aspect of the money implications of the Bill.
My second question relates to a matter that I raised during the Second Reading debate. One significant school in the country—Harrow, a well-resourced public school of some repute—has withdrawn from its relationship with the Institute of Education in respect of the training of students. Does that mean that the costs that schools have to bear as a result of their participation in school-based teacher training will be greater than those incurred by Harrow in a partnership scheme? Harrow was unable to sustain the costs. If a school with such resources could not cope, what will be the implications for the generality of state schools in Britain when the Bill, if it is passed, comes into effect and the scheme begins to operate?
If experienced teachers are to be freed so that they can train students as effectively as the Minister suggested, will they not have to be withdrawn from other classes to concentrate on the support that they give to the students under their tutelage? Will that not have profound cost implications for schools? I ask that question against a background in which, perforce, the Government say that the success of the whole operation depends on full co-operation by schools, and that governing bodies will be able to decide whether their schools participate.
As we all know, under local management of schools the problem of costs has a continual impact on governors. One of the great anxieties besetting governing bodies in the discharge of the responsibilities recently placed upon them is how to balance their budgets. Yet the Secretary of State is introducing a Bill that will create additional burdens for schools in the training of teachers, while the Government apparently expect there to be no financial consequences.
I ask the Minister to respond to these questions. Would not the creation of a general teaching council to oversee such arrangements, as is advocated by the Labour party, be a far more cost-effective and less burdensome way of organising and controlling teacher training? Would not that solution be cheaper as well as more effective and more acceptable? Will the Minister reconsider that matter?
§ Mr. Don FosterFurther to the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about the money resolution. We have often been told that the Conservative party is the party of sound finance. Yet, as ever, the money resolution gives the Government a blank cheque. It is important to have some idea of the size of that cheque. The Bill tells us that there will be few or no net costs. If that is true, the Minister must tell us which Peter will be robbed to pay Paul, or if there is to be a net cost, what it will be.
Unfortunately, on Second Reading we could not get answers that would have helped us to have some idea of the financial implications. During the Minister's summing up I asked him to estimate how many students were likely to be engaged in the entirely school-based teacher training that the Bill recommends. He told us that he was not prepared to make any estimate of the numbers. I also asked him to explain to the House whether there would be a cost differential between that form of teacher training and the more traditional form. We were given no answer to that question either. We need answers to both those questions if we are to have any idea what the costs may be.
I shall illustrate why those questions are important by referring to a scheme already in place. The Minister will be aware that the articled teacher training scheme, in which about 80 per cent. of the training is carried out in schools, costs about £10,000 per student over two years. That is about three times the average cost of training a student under the ordinary PGCE route. Clearly, if many students follow the new route, at three times the cost of the present scheme, that will impose a significant financial burden.
For example, if around 20 per cent. of PGCE students, of whom there are currently 16,500, operated under the new arrangements, it would mean that 3,300 students would follow the new route proposed in the Bill with what I predict will be significantly increased costs. To make that happen, there would have to be about 200 consortia and thousands of schools involved, and the increased costs would be significant. Significant amounts of money would have to be laid aside for giving teachers time off to do the additional work and to provide supply cover for them. Money would have to be spent on the assessment of the consortia to check for their suitability and, clearly, on the monitoring of quality in those consortia—something about which the Office for Standards in Education has already expressed concern in relation to the training of articled teachers.
It seems pretty clear that increased costs will exist and we need to have an idea of what those costs will be if the legislation is to go ahead. If the Minister says that there will be no net cost, the clear implication of that, which he must acknowledge, is that money will be taken away from other more traditional forms of teacher training.
One further question that I hope that the Minister will answer is what salary is intended to be paid to the chairman of the new Teacher Training Agency. We know that, recently, the appointment of the chairman to the funding agency of schools led to a salary of some £33,500 per annum for what is, apparently, a two-day-a-week job. I think that the House would very much like to know what sort of salary is envisaged for the chairman of the TTA and whether any salaries are intended to be paid to any of the other eight to 12 members of that agency.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire)On balance, I am relieved that the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) chose to speak. I know that that pleasure is not shared by any of my hon. Friends, but it means that, after a long day, I have a chance to come to the Dispatch Box.
The reforms provided for in the Bill will achieve greater effectiveness and accountability in the use of public funds. I shall, in a moment, deal with the points raised by hon. Members. Part II of the Bill, on the reform of student unions, creates no new charges on and no new recipients of public funds. We are not proposing to change either the way in which money is distributed or the amount, on account of the student union reforms. They therefore strictly lie outside the scope of this resolution.
Part I of the Bill, as every hon. Member must now be aware, creates a Teacher Training Agency. It is for part I alone that we need the resolution. That is not because the agency will give rise to any increase in public expenditure. We have said clearly—I shall be happy to reaffirm it—that there will be no net cost. However, the agency will be a new recipient of public funds and it is right that that point should be covered by a money resolution.
§ Mr. SquireMay I get a little further down the line and then I shall give way, assuming that there is time? I am sure that there is.
As hon. Members heard on Second Reading, the agency will draw together a number of important functions currently carried out, in effect, by four different bodies. It will naturally, therefore, draw together the relevant funding which those bodies have previously been allocated in respect of teacher training—part of the point that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised a moment ago. To remind the House, the four bodies are the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advises the Secretary of State on individual courses, teaching as a career unit—also known as TASC—which promotes teaching as a career, the Department for Education itself, which approves all courses of teacher training and funds school-centred training courses, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds all courses at higher education institutions.
§ Dr. GodmanDoes the agency have any role to play in the assessment of the training qualifications of teachers residing in other European Union member states who wish to teach here? If that is the case, what estimate has been made concerning the cost involved in such an assessment?
§ Mr. SquireMy understanding of the position—I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman if it is different—is that we are talking of initial teacher training and, above all, that those entering it must be graduates. Assuming that the person from another country had an accepted graduate qualification—subject to me verifying what I am about to say outside this place—I assume that he or she could come within the purview of the proposal.
§ Dr. GodmanI do not want to delay our proceedings, but the Minister will know that if an English teacher seeks 692 to teach in a Scottish school, he or she has to be approved by the generai training council. Would that be the position with the proposed agency, where—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That has nothing to do with the money resolution.
§ Mr. SquireI am advised that I should ignore the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and the teaching as a career unit will close, if this is not obvious from my previous comments, when the agency is set up. The Department for Education will have reduced functions in this area.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton made arguably excessive mention of Harrow, the well-known independent school. It decided to withdraw from the scheme under which it was offered a sum by the Institute of Education to play a part in a school-centered training scheme. It was free to do that, as are schools free to go in or to go out of school training. Harrow's action means no more and no less than that.
As for £4,000 per student, that is the same sum that higher education institutes receive. The moneys go directly to schools to use as they wish. It is for schools to decide whether the sum is enough, and a number have already done so. As hon. Members will be aware from the opening speeches this afternoon, from September about 450 students are expected to be trained by some 16 consortia. Other establishments have not yet so determined, and some may never do so. They have the freedom to take that course.
The hon. Member for Bath asked whether I could estimate the number of students that the Government believe will come through school-centred training. It is impossible to give such an estimate at this stage. At present, out of about 60,000 would-be teachers, just over 20,000 are graduates and, therefore, are potentially within the area that could be affected by the Bill. As I have said, about 450 students are expected to be trained from September out of a total of about 23,000. The move from there will depend on how would-be teachers wish to train, the number of schools that come forward and the numbers of the consortia that are accepted as providing a reasonable level of training and value for money. Everything flows from that. Like anyone else, I cannot make predictions at this stage.
The Bill does not contain a recommendation for school-centred training but it will allow it to take place alongside other training. It is neutral on school-centred training versus the more traditional route. The Teacher Training Agency will, however, fund all forms of post-graduate training in this respect.
The greatest part of the agency's budget will be for the support of courses of initial teacher training. The majority of such courses are currently funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. To the extent that funding is going to the HEFCE for that purpose, there will be a transfer of the funding from the HEFCE to the TTA. That will pass to the agency during 1995, which will take over the relevant funds from the funding council, the budget of which will be reduced accordingly.
§ Mr. Don FosterIs it the Minister's estimate or intention that the cost per student for training through each of the two approaches will be the same or, as is the case for 693 articled teacher training, will the cost for more school-based training be higher? Will the Minister clarify the position?
§ Mr. SquireI apologise to the hon. Gentleman because he raised a small point that I wanted to take up, and I shall do so now. The answer to his question is that the costs will be broadly similar. The Teacher Training Agency, apart from its quality objective, also has a value-for-money dimension built in. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the articled teacher scheme is being phased out, not least on the ground of the high cost, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The financial provisions are straightforward and uncontentious, and hon. Members need have no concerns about the Bill's funding implications. We believe that the Bill and new funding arrangements will lead to significant improvements in the deployment of resources for initial teacher training and I therefore commend the motion to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.