§ 3. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)When he will next meet the relevant Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the education standard spending assessment in shire counties; and if he will make a statement. [99342]
§ The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris)The Government announced in November 1998 a three-year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant that is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs. The Government do not expect to discuss or make fresh changes to the method of calculation of SSAs while that review is taking place.
§ Mr. FabricantFurther to the question put to the Prime Minister last week by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is the Minister aware of the concern felt by Staffordshire parents? Does she know that a leaflet has been circulated by the Staffordshire federation of parent teacher associations outlining the existing discrepancy? It states that Staffordshire primary school pupils receive just £2,151, whereas pupils in Hertfordshire receive £2,370. Moreover, at high school level, Staffordshire children get £2,761, while Hertfordshire children receive £3,029.
Does the Minister understand the frustration felt by Staffordshire parents at that discrepancy, given that Labour promised before the election that it would be rectified in the first year of a Labour Government?
§ Ms MorrisI have seen the leaflet, as many have ended up on my desk. I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman describes, which existed well before the general election. Over 18 years, not only did the previous Conservative Government do nothing to change SSAs, but year on year they cut the money going to Staffordshire.
I do not defend the present SSA structure, which is unfair to some local authorities. Staffordshire is one authority where that unfairness is most evident. We are determined to change the structure for the better, but we need to do so with the consensus of those local authorities 416 that may suffer as a result. If we have not achieved that in one year, it is because that consensus did not exist. However, we are examining the matter and our conclusion will be announced within three years.
The hon. Gentleman knows that, although the SSA has not been changed, the Government have put extra funding into Staffordshire. That extra funding has comprised £6.3 million in extra capital funds and increased SSAs year on year, while almost £2.5 million extra has been given to help with class sizes. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might acknowledge the £45,000 that has been made available to schools in his constituency alone. That money has been used to pay for more teachers and to reduce class sizes for the children of his constituents.
§ Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)I am pleased that the Government are attempting to detoxicate the poisoned chalice of local education authority funding passed on by the previous Administration. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Leicestershire is at the bottom of the shire tables for SSA per school pupil, and that SSA revisions must bridge an £8 million void? We in Leicestershire are happy to be at the top of sporting leagues in cricket, rugby and football, but we are very unhappy to be at the bottom of the funding leagues for health, emergency services and education. Can she offer some hope in that regard to the people of Leicestershire?
§ Ms MorrisYes. I am aware that Leicestershire is another of the local authorities that does not do well out of the present SSA formula. However, the House must be aware that I cannot remember an hon. Member standing up and saying that his or her local authority does too well out of the present structure. No one should underestimate the difficulty of changing that structure to make it fairer. However, we are determined to do that, and I will not apologise if the process of getting the structure right takes more than a year.
I repeat the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). We are determined to introduce a more robust and fairer system. Meanwhile, we will do everything that we can to continue to honour our pledge of putting more money into local authorities. Leicestershire has received more than £1.5 million in the first year to help with class sizes, and in the form of extra capital. It and other LEAs will share in the increased resources that the Government are putting into education, but I am afraid that the change to the SSA formula will take a year or two longer to implement.
§ Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)The next time that the Minister and the Secretary of State meet the Deputy Prime Minister, will they discuss the importance of forward planning? So far, we have had three different settlements for local authorities. In July last year, we had a 6.2 per cent. settlement. In September, it went down to 5.4 per cent. as £150 million was slashed off the budget to pay for performance-related pay. In the settlement a week ago, we suddenly had £50 million put back in. It is difficult for local authorities to plan on that basis. Given that the essence of PRP is consistency, does she realise that many heads, governors and local education 417 authorities are finding that uncertainty in planning for PRP is causing immense discontent and unrest in our schools?
§ Ms MorrisWhat a headline: "Lib Dem complains that Secretary of State puts more money into education". What is life coming to? That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did last week.
§ Mr. WillisHe took money away.
§ Ms MorrisNo money was taken away. I and the Deputy Prime Minister have always said that standard spending assessments would increase by 5.4 per cent. and that the money for PRP was on top of that, making 6.1 per cent. None of that has been taken out. What happened last Thursday was that he put a significant amount of money into local authority funding in plenty of time for local authorities to make decisions about the budgets they will announce for schools next year. I would have thought that that more than anything else would have been greatly welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. His reaction is a touch churlish and does him no justice.
§ Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)My right hon. Friend will be as delighted as I am to learn that schools in Brent are transferring from the private sector into local authority control. Will she ensure that when such a welcome event happens, corresponding funding is made available in the education SSA? This year, Brent faces a £500,000 shortfall, which would be unfair on children in existing local authority schools. Will she consider that?
§ Ms MorrisI accept that. As with many such matters, it is a question of timing. Sometimes schools transfer to the maintained sector at a point in the financial cycle when the numbers have already been collected. I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about schools transferring to the maintained sector to see whether we can offer more help. I am not aware of the schools or their circumstances, so perhaps a further conversation outside the House would be the best way forward.
§ Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)Does the Minister not understand—I hope that after the representations that she has heard this morning she will be closer to understanding it—the resentment building up in shire counties such as Staffordshire and Leicestershire as yet again, on eduction funding, the Government say one thing and do another? They say that extra money is going into schools but there is no extra money for the new A-levels. In Northumberland, which received one of the lowest grant increases, a head teacher has warned of A-level classes of more than 30 as a result. The Government promised local authorities that they would fund the teachers' PRP proposals centrally and that all the money would come out of the £1 billion that they claimed had been set aside. Now they are top-slicing money away from local authorities and school budgets. The Government said that school sixth form funding would be guaranteed, yet five months on, they still have not announced what it will be. Today, we learn that teachers and students will have to pay to take their cars into school. Is not that all another part of the great Labour lie? Is it not time that 418 the Minister admitted that this over-bureaucratic and centralising Government are failing to get money where it is needed—into the schools?
§ Ms MorrisWhat changes between a Labour and a Conservative Government is that the argument is about how much extra goes to schools, rather than how much is being taken out of schools. That was the form that questions and answers took under the previous Government.
The money for PRP for reforming the teaching profession is exactly as we said it would be; £1 billion is being held centrally, and will be transferred for threshold payments as and when teachers cross the threshold. My right hon. Friend and I said that there would be 5 per cent. extra on the SSA this year; more money will be held centrally by the Government—some out of the SSA and some kept in a separate fund that will be held back. We can argue about whether the figure is 5.4 or 6.1 per cent.; frankly, I am happy to defend either figure—compared to what schools had to put up with, year after year, under the Conservative Administration.