§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
§ 12.8 am
§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the burning issues relating to secondary education in my constituency and to alert the Minister to a crisis that may occur soon unless urgent action is taken.
Despite its image, my constituency is not primarily a rural area. More than half of my constituents live in the four towns of Malmesbury, Wootton Bassett, Corsham and Chippenham. Those are fast-progressing, fast-expanding towns—more akin to the other towns along the M4 corridor than are the more rural parts of north Wiltshire. That can be seen in the growth of the primary schools. In Chippenham alone, three new primary schools have been opened in the past eight years, and soon another will need to be opened to cater for the very many children in the town.
The primary school sector needs significant new investment, but, unquestionably, the area where investment is really needed in north Wiltshire is secondary schools, which have not kept pace with the rapid population growth in the area. That failure to keep pace prompted my request for this Adjournment debate.
Of the three local education authority secondary schools, only Corsham is roughly the size that it should be, although even there it is projected that, by the year 2000, there will be a shortfall of about 80 places, growing thereafter until, by 2003, we shall have a shortage of a couple of hundred in Corsham. However, it is in the other three towns—Chippenham, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett—that especially urgent action is needed if we are to avoid a crisis of under-provision in the area.
The trouble appears to be that Wiltshire's strategic education planning has never addressed projected growth in student numbers until after the pupils are in place. The reason given by the local education authority for that failure to plan strategically is that it is central Government's fault. The director of education says:
Ideally extra places would be provided when a shortfall is predicted, not when it becomes actual. Funding arrangements by Central Government do not allow for this. They allow for demand a maximum of three years hence to be satisfied, but during that period demand in an area such as North Wiltshire will be growing.That, of course, is true. The population in the area is growing so fast that allowing the local authority to plan only three years ahead is inadequate. The Minister might like to ponder whether "predict and provide" may have a useful role to play in a place such as north Wiltshire, where predictions are exceptionally clear.It may be useful if I briefly lay out the problem in each of the three main towns, and then suggest a few possible solutions to those problems.
It is predicted that, in Chippenham, there will be a shortfall in secondary school places of some 130 by the year 2000, of some 360 by 2001, and of an increasing number thereafter. There are two absolutely excellent grant-maintained secondary schools in Chippenham—the Sheldon school and Hardenhuish school, both of which are already full to capacity. The head and chairman of governors are very worried that they may have to put up 942 with many mobile classrooms from the local authority between the year 2000 and 2001, if plans to build a third school in Chippenham are not implemented.
The curious thing about mobile classrooms is that they appear to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once one has a mobile classroom on one's site, it seems to remain for ever and become a permanent classroom—and, curiously, the number of children seems to expand to fill the mobile classrooms available. Hardly surprisingly, therefore, Hardenhuish and Sheldon are very reluctant to have mobile classrooms on their sites.
In any case, both those secondary schools are at the north of the town, and most of the expansion is in the Pewsham estate, in the south of the town, which is where the local authority had been planning the third secondary school. The people of Chippenham rejoiced to hear local authority plans to open a 450-place secondary school in September 2000. That was promised by the local authority in November and December 1997—not least at a public meeting in Chippenham, which I attended.
However, by about Christmas time, the Lib-Lab pact that currently runs Wiltshire county council suddenly became enamoured of the Thatcherite principles behind the public-private partnership initiative—or the private finance initiative, as I still, in my old-fashioned way, tend to think of it. Naturally, we were delighted that they were so pleased to take up that Thatcherite principle. We were also pleased to hear that, last week, the Government announced £100,000 to help the council with that PPP bid.
I was glad that the consultants appointed by the county council advised that using the PPP for the new school for Chippenham was perfectly possible, but I was slightly astonished to hear from the county council, when I met some councillors last week, that they advised that such a PPP project was likely to provide a higher quality of school than traditional funding methods would.
I find it hard to imagine a Labour Government being content that private funding for a state school would provide a higher-quality school than a state-funded project. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that, if a school were to be built using traditional funding methods, the quality of the school would be as high as it would be if private funding were used.
The county also concluded that the capital works needed in the other two towns, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett—about which I shall say more in a moment—were more likely to attract a suitable PPP partner if they were bundled up with Chippenham. The upshot of that decision was the announcement last week or the week before that the much-needed new school for Chippenham would not be ready in September 2000, and that 2001 was the earliest date at which the PPP package could be in place.
Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the PPP package could be hastened, so that the school can open by September 2000. If not, some 130 pupils will be bussed around Wiltshire in the interim year. They may go to Corsham—although the county seems to have ignored the fact that its school will be full by 2000—or perhaps to Caine, some five or 10 miles away from Chippenham. The county might even close a local special school, Allington—which has a current roll of only 40 or so boys—and put the 130 school-less secondary children there.
943 It is hardly surprising that the rejoicing about the school's opening in September 2000 has rapidly turned to sincere anger on the part of parents in Chippenham. They have brought significant pressure to bear on me, and I am pleased to raise the matter with the Minister in this Adjournment debate. It is unacceptable in this great modern age—the education, education, education age—to be bussing children from a progressive town such as Chippenham to neighbouring market towns, or putting them up temporarily in a disused special school.
The county has a site available—despite the fact that two "fat boy" bombs were discovered on it just before Christmas. They have been cleared successfully and the site is now available for the school. Until Christmas, the county was confident that traditional methods of finance were in place to pay for the school by 2000. It should be possible to find a way of ensuring that the school opens by then.
The only strong argument in favour of the PPP bid is that the other two portions of it, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett, may stand a better chance of being brought forward in time. Their need is very great—although perhaps not quite so urgent as that of Chippenham. The Malmesbury school is presently located on two sites situated a mile or two apart. The lower school is found on the Filands site, and the upper school is situated on the Corngastons site. That is a wholly unacceptable situation these days, which cannot possibly be cost effective.
There is an overwhelming argument in favour of bringing the school together, probably on the Corngastons site—there have been representations recently that perhaps Filands would be better, but that matter will be decided in due course—and selling the other site for housing, which north Wiltshire badly needs. However, I plead that the land not be sold for the construction of an out-of-town shopping centre of any kind, which would ruin the vibrant high street in Malmesbury. If the school is located on one site and the other site is sold for housing, the project should be more or less self-financing.
Wootton Bassett is also convincing proof of the LEA's lack of strategic planning for school numbers. Bassett is close to Swindon, and has grown exponentially in recent years. It already has 22 mobile classrooms, many of which are more than 20 years old. I have visited them, and many are falling to pieces. There are currently 1,370 pupils at the school, of whom only 1,000 are in permanent classrooms. The county is projecting a further shortfall of 40 places by 2000 and 130 by 2003. Thereafter, it is predicting that the school will grow to house 1,800 children on that one site. Some urgent capital action is definitely needed to ensure that they can be housed appropriately.
The picture that I have painted depicts an imminent crisis in Chippenham—with secondary children being bussed around—and, although the problems in Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett are less acute, they are none the less just as pressing in reality. It seems to me to be wrong to lump the third school in Chippenham with the projects at Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. The need in Chippenham is more urgent.
I suggest to the Minister and to Wiltshire county council education authority that the Chippenham school should proceed with all due dispatch using traditional funding methods, and that they should stick to their publicly expressed intention to complete the school by 944 September 2000. The funding of the project may require assistance from central Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment—either tonight or during further discussions between his officials and the county, which I will happily help to arrange or participate in if that would be useful—on the likelihood of that assistance being forthcoming.
I understand that the capital borrowing permission for 1998–99 was in place last December, but that a surprise cut of 30 per cent. by the Government in 1997–98 levels was a contributory factor in the LEA's decision to delay the project and to fund it as a PPP. Will the Minister please consider reinstating the 30 per cent. that the Government cut from the basic needs borrowing permission, so that the project may proceed to the original time scale?
Will the Minister further confirm that there need be no lowering of standards among buildings financed by the traditional method, compared with those financed by the PPP?
If the third school in Chippenham goes ahead at an early date using traditional funding methods, that would leave the Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett part of the PPP bid, which would still probably amount to some £10 million-surely large enough to attract suitable private funding.
If that were too small on its own, other urgent projects in the primary school sector, such as the Kings Lodge and Charter primary schools in Chippenham, perhaps the Malmesbury primary school, the Lydiard Millicent primary school which is on a site split by a road, or the Ashton Keynes primary school, where two thirds of the children are in mobiles, could be added to it. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the likelihood of success of such a mixed secondary-primary PPP bid, which I believe would be a first in the nation.
The county is grateful for the £900,000 help for Wiltshire under the new deal announced last week. Crudwell and Christian Malford primary schools will benefit from it. However, the sum is a drop in the ocean compared with the £3 million that the county demanded, and is £100,000 less than it achieved last year. The new deal is not a particularly great help for the county.
I am concerned that the PPP bid may not succeed, however it is configured. The Minister may want to give some thought to that, and tell us the likelihood of traditional finance being available, especially for the Chippenham school but also for the other two, if we are unable to find a PPP partner.
It would not be possible to leave a debate on education in north Wiltshire without referring to this year's settlement. The Minister will not be surprised if I do so. No doubt I have that in common with most of the local authority representatives who have spoken to him over the past few months.
In Wiltshire, school budgets have been cut by 2 per cent. in real terms. An increase of 0.8 per cent. was needed to pay for the full-year effect of the 1997–98 pay award, and a further 2.6 per cent. to meet the 1998–99 pay awards and inflation. A total cash increase of 3.4 per cent. was required. Only 1.4 per cent. was forthcoming, which means real and damaging cuts in the standard of education offered in Wiltshire.
Many schools are operating a deficit budget already. There will be redundancies in the county. IT will be curtailed. There is no repairs or decoration budget at all. 945 Money for books and equipment is frozen or falling. The Minister constantly speaks of a 5.2 per cent. increase for Wiltshire, but that is a wholly misleading use of statistics. The reality is a cash cut, as I have described.
North Wiltshire is a prosperous and fast expanding area. I am not alone in the county in sensing a looming crisis in the provision of secondary education in the area. I hope that the Minister, together with Wiltshire county council, will take urgent action after this evening's debate avoid such a crisis.
§ The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers)I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing this debate to consider the situation affecting schools in his constituency. He has drawn to the attention of the House his concerns about the potential difficulties facing a new secondary school in the southern part of Chippenham and raised issues related to revenue funding and the 5.2 per cent. increase that the Government have made available to schools in Wiltshire for the current financial year.
I shall comment briefly on the revenue settlement. The 5.2 per cent. is for the first time a real-terms increase that Wiltshire county council has received. An Adjournment debate at this time of the evening is not a good time to make party-political points, but I must say that the Government have done their part by providing that real-terms increase. If the hon. Gentleman and schools in Wiltshire are concerned that the money has not found its way into schools, it is right that the issue should be taken up with the county council. If the county council reconsiders its decisions in the next few weeks, it may feel able to allocate more funding to schools. Certainly the Government have made the money available, and it is our intention that it should find its way into schools in Wiltshire generally, and in north Wiltshire in particular—the schools represented by the hon. Gentleman.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the capital situation; that is the issue which I shall take up in particular. Before I do, I wish to compliment the schools in north Wiltshire on the good standards that they are already achieving. One of the benefits of a debate of this sort is that it provides a Minister with an opportunity to examine in some detail the schools in a certain area. That has been possible given the briefing that I have received from my officials. Over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to note the relative performance of schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
As the Minister for School Standards, it is appropriate for me to compliment the majority of schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which are doing well and providing the standards that the Government want. I pass on my congratulations and best wishes to head teachers, governors and parents with pupils attending the schools, given the excellent work that is clearly being done.
The hon. Gentleman raised particular concerns about the need for a new secondary school in Chippenham and the need for changes in both Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. I shall refer to those three proposals.
I need to say clearly that any proposal for a new secondary school in Chippenham will have to come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval. 946 There is a statutory process that has to be followed. Nothing that I say this evening in any way prejudges or prejudices the decision that will eventually be taken by the Secretary of State if an application is made for a new secondary school in Chippenham. The application will require the approval of the Secretary of State, and if objections are made during the relevant two-month period, it will be for my right hon. Friend to come to a determination one way or the other. It would be wholly inappropriate to prejudge the situation before the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consider any objections. There may be no objections, but if there are my right hon. Friend will need to consider them in an unbiased way.
I need to make clear that when the Government consider the needs of a growing population, that is reflected in our capital allocation process. We do not consider the factor in terms of what is happening now; the Government plan ahead, and effectively we have a four-year horizon, during which we shall consider the need for new places in an area. We have done that in respect of Wiltshire.
We have considered growth, as outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that this is a part of the country where, over the next few years, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined, there will be population growth and an increase in pupil numbers. We need to plan ahead to ensure that the potential difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not occur. That is exactly what the Government intend to do.
We do not intend to stand to one side and watch a crisis develop in the Chippenham area where at the beginning of the new century children will have to be bussed to secondary schools. We must consider carefully the steps that can be taken now and in the near future to ensure that that does not happen.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about temporary accommodation. He is absolutely right. Temporary accommodation often becomes permanent. Those of us who visit schools, either in our constituencies or in other parts of the country, are well aware of temporary buildings that remain in place after many years—indeed, many decades—of use.
I was particularly pleased when it came to round two of our new deal for schools. We were able to make some capital allocations to ensure that temporary accommodation would be replaced by high-quality alternative accommodation. We shall continue to pursue that policy as we enter subsequent rounds of the new deal for schools. Over the life of this Parliament, about £2 billion extra will be used to improve school building stock.
We give local education authorities the flexibility to decide exactly how to allocate our annual capital guidelines. We do not tie the guidelines to specific school projects, although when an LEA applies for funding we expect it to tell the Department exactly how it will make best use of the money. It is important for local democracy to allow LEAs the freedom to determine their own priorities, and we do that within the annual capital guidelines. We have adopted a different approach in the new deal, in that we fund specific school project applications by LEAs.
A specific concern about Chippenham's proposed third secondary school close to the Pewsham estate relates to the two "fat boy" bombs that were discovered just before 947 Christmas. People were worried that the cost of removing the bombs would have to be met from the original pathfinder budget for the new school.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will welcome the fact that my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have told Wiltshire that it will consider meeting the cost of disposing of the bombs through the Bellwin scheme, which was introduced many years ago by Lord Bellwin to deal with emergencies affecting local authority expenditure. My colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will carefully consider the adoption of an equivalent to the Bellwin scheme to cover the additional costs arising from the finding of those two unexploded bombs.
The main issue raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is the possible delay on the Chippenham school as a result of its becoming part of a public-private partnership. I fully understand his concerns. The Government's desire to promote such partnerships, to which we are committed as an alternative source of funding for our schools stock, should not in any way delay Chippenham's third secondary school. We appreciate the need for the school and we want to ensure that nothing delays its development if it is approved by the Secretary of State.
We note Wiltshire's recent decision to bundle the Chippenham secondary school with proposals affecting Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He correctly said that we have reserved £100,000 to help Wiltshire develop the project under the second round of the new deal initiative.
Many local education authorities do not have the in-house expertise to pursue public-private partnerships, and that is one of the reasons for the setting up in my Department of the schools private finance team. It consists of a group of people with expertise in private finance, and I am more than willing to offer that expertise to Wiltshire to support and assist the county in developing a new private-public partnership.
Because time is of the essence, my team will contact Wiltshire before the end of this week to arrange a meeting, within days rather than weeks, to discuss with the county council how urgent progress can be made in developing the public-private partnership arrangements to cover Chippenham, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. 948 I believe that progress can be made and that this project can become an exciting example of the public-private partnership approach that we want to be developed.
The hon. Gentleman compared the quality of buildings funded under the traditional annual capital guidelines with those funded through public-private partnerships. I must make it clear that, whatever the source of funding, the Government want high-quality school buildings. We have been concerned about the quality of school buildings and we need to take steps to ensure that when we spend public money we get value for the taxpayer. We are looking critically at the way in which local education authorities spend the capital that is given to them by central Government. All too often—perhaps due to lack of experience—they do not secure value for money. Any pound that is mis-spent or spent inefficiently is a pound less for raising standards in our schools.
The Government have a good deal of sympathy for the case made by the hon. Gentleman. We are keen to develop public-private partnerships and we support Wiltshire's public-private proposals, which is why we have reserved £100,000 to help fund the development costs of the project. We commend Wiltshire's enterprise and want to give all possible assistance to ensure that the project is successfully concluded. I am, therefore, more than willing to offer the support and guidance of the Department's private finance team to help Wiltshire achieve its objectives.
Our endeavours to promote public-private partnerships must not be at the expense of the third secondary school in Chippenham. It would clearly be unacceptable to delay that school by a year. We shall give Wiltshire all the support that we can to develop that public-private partnership quickly, but we are not wedded to dogma, so if insufficient progress is made within the timetable we shall consider alternative proposals. We shall need to look into traditional methods of funding to ensure that the school in Chippenham opens in September 2000.
The Government intend to discharge their responsibilities to the children of north Wiltshire, to raise standards and to provide high-quality education. We want to do that for the children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and for children across the country. I hope that, in responding positively to the debate, I have been able to show the Government's commitment to providing high standards and a good quality of education for all our children.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.