HC Deb 12 November 2003 vol 413 cc379-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

5.53 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of free transport to denominational schools in Essex. I am pleased to see my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), in his place this evening, and my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) are here too.

The genesis of the provision of free school transport lies in the Education Act 1944. That landmark legislation was brought before the House by the great reforming Minister—the great Prime Minister that the Conservative party never had—the right hon. B.A. Butler. He was a part-predecessor of mine in that he represented the three villages of Gosfield, Earls Colne and White Colne, which are now in the Braintree parliamentary division, but were then in Saffron Walden.

Since that time, it has been the invariable practice of education authorities to provide free school transport for pupils whose parents have chosen to enrol them in a denominational secondary school. Such provision is subject to the school being more than 3 miles from home and the nearest school of that denomination. In Essex, with one exception, all the schools affected will be Catholic schools in practice. In 1998, the county council ended free school transport for Catholic sixth forms, but it now proposes to end all free transport for Catholic secondary schools in the county, unless the school is more than 3 miles from home and is the nearest school of any type. In practice, that would mean that a child is compelled to go whatever school is nearest if the distance is more than 3 miles.

Thus, free transport to secondary schools would be ended for every Catholic child in the county, irrespective of their parents' financial circumstances and the school's distance from home. Instead of the free system, the county proposes a charge of £100 per term per child. In its generosity, it is to reduce that amount to £40 for parents whose income is below the qualifying level for income-based jobseeker's allowance. Essex county council indicated that the change would take place for the next school term, which is barely eight weeks away. At least, that was the position until some point this afternoon, when a county policy meeting occurred and the council backtracked somewhat on its earlier proposal. It is now proposing to introduce whatever changes it will make next September.

Frankly, I do not see that as a major concession to the principle of free school transport in our county. The original proposal breached the departmental guidelines, which say that, unless there are compelling reasons, policy should be changed only at the beginning of the school year. I believe that the faith of the county council is also being tested further than that. An implied contract exists not in law, but in ethics, between the county and parents, who will have read the prospectuses of Catholic secondary schools in deciding which school they would send their children to and would have been assured that free school transport was available.

Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich)

There are two Catholic primary schools in my constituency—St. Joseph's in Harwich and St. Clare's in Clacton. The only option that children from both schools have is to go to St. Benedict's in Colchester. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair to force a charge of £100 a term on those children's parents now they are attending that school in Colchester? Those parents only option is to pay the money if they can afford to do so or to pull their children out and send them to another school, which would completely disrupt their education.

Mr. Hurst

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the position that he describes replicates that of children in my division who attend the same secondary school in Colchester as those in Clacton and Harwich. In my judgment, there is a lack of good faith in allowing parents to put down their child's name for one school on the basis a particular premise, after which the authority changes the rules halfway or a few weeks into the process. That does not seem an even-handed system for parents. Hon. Members will realise that the proposals have caused uproar in Essex.

Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem not only in Essex, but in my county, Hertfordshire, where many parents are worried that the same thing may happen? Does he agree that some new thinking is required? For example, school starting times could be staggered so as to let older pupils start at 8 o'clock in the morning or transport, could be collectivised in the same way as county supplies so that several counties could join in providing the transport system.

Mr. Hurst

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Imaginative ideas are needed to resolve these difficulties, but provision for children should be at the forefront in our minds.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) in the Chamber. He no longer represents a division of the county, but one of the lost territories, if I can put it that way. He may have the opportunity to tell us how the borough of Southend is dealing with the matter.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend. East)

I know that the hon. Gentleman always tries to be fair, so will he make it clear to his colleagues—who are listening carefully to him—that no decision has yet been made, and the only reason why the county has to consider this and other horrible plans is the appalling financial settlement that Essex has received from the Government? On that particular point, does he realise that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) went to see the Minister only yesterday to try to obtain further money for education because we are so short of it in Southend, even though we are very careful? He said that we could put the rates up more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the county is in a difficult position because of the appalling financial settlement that it has had from the Government, and it does not want to do nasty things like charging for school transport.

Mr. Hurst

Generosity is a virtue in humankind, but fear that it was misplaced in allowing such an intervention. I have tried to avoid even naming which party is running the county council or the borough of Southend, and it was not my intention to inquire into the financial management of either, notwithstanding the fact that both have received substantial increases in the past six years. It is for residents in both county and borough to consider whether the financial resources allocated to those areas are properly managed. I had hoped to avoid partisanship, and I shall seek to continue to do so for the remainder of my speech, unless misled in another direction.

The county council has conducted a consultation exercise. If there is one word that strikes terror into the minds of everyone in public life, it is the word "consultation", which should usually be put in inverted commas. The council omitted formally to consult school governors, who are now an important part of any education system and bear great responsibilities. There was no formal consultation of governing bodies. The council heard from school governors because parents speak to them, and that was how they learned about the consultation exercise.

I understand that a petition with more than 2,500 names has been delivered to the county council, objecting to the proposals. Some 1,000 letters of protest have been received, and only five in favour. If consultation has any meaning close to that shown in a standard English dictionary, I would have thought that the county council would concede that the consultation has reached a verdict and abandon its proposals. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that has not, alas, been the case.

Sir Teddy Taylor

Yet.

Mr. Hurst

The hon. Gentleman says "Yet", if my ears do not deceive me. I accept that the council met this afternoon and has slightly diluted its proposals by putting back the start date. I understand that it has also raised the prospect that because of the disruption and hardship that could be caused to children in their GCSE year, it may re-examine that aspect of the proposal. Frankly, that does not satisfy me and it will not satisfy the parents in the county of Essex.

The Braintree parliamentary division does not include a Catholic secondary school. The children from Catholic families travel to Colchester, to St. Benedict's, or to Chelmsford, to St. John Payne. I have spoken to parents and governors of both schools. The headmaster at St. Benedict's, Mr. Alan Whelan, tells me that he has about 500 children in receipt of free school transport. Mr. Frank McAvoy, headmaster of St. John Payne, has about 680 children in receipt of free school transport. The best estimate one can make is that some 250 children from the Braintree parliamentary division travel to Catholic secondary schools every day.

The arguments against the proposal are overwhelming. For a start, it would discriminate against poorer families. A family with three children in secondary education would be charged £900 per annum from taxed income. Even those on benefit would need to find £120 a year, or more than £2 a week. The poorest would suffer, and the threat is already demoralising parents and children. One school fears that it has already lost four pupils.

There is also discrimination against the Catholic community. Catholic parishes originally paid 25 per cent. of the cost of constructing the two secondary schools that serve mid and North Essex, and today they continue to contribute 10 per cent. of the cost of external maintenance and renovation. In fact, I am told that the Catholic community has recently paid £20,000 towards the cost of a new roof for St. Francis Catholic primary school in Braintree. Catholic parents already pay over and above what other parents pay towards their children's education. As a consequence, they are saving the county council costs that it would otherwise have to find. To add transport costs is unfair and, frankly, demeaning to the county council.

Savings are like a will-o'-the-wisp: exactly what the savings are and where they will come from can never be pinned down. If the charging policy is introduced, Catholic schools rolls may well reduce. Without being an advanced mathematician, I can say that, as a consequence, the average cost per child to the county will rise if there are fewer children but the establishment remains much the same.

Many Catholic children who live in rural areas will still be entitled to free school transport to their nearest county school. The transport costs will remain, but they will go to a different school. I know that hon. Members can imagine the disruption that that will cause to young children's education, so it is not for me to say more about that. Those children will be taken away from a secondary school, where they had friends whom they have been with ever since they entered primary school, and they will go to a school where they know virtually no one, part way through their school careers. I cannot understand how the consequences of that will produce any saving of any kind to the county, the parents or the children.

I cannot speak for other parts of the county, but most of the schools in Braintree district are already oversubscribed. Accommodating extra children who have been driven out of their schools of choice by the charging policy will produce a cost to the county for new buildings, extra teachers and equipment. The costs will just move along. How the county council could imagine in its great foresight that introducing that policy would not outrage all right-thinking people way beyond the Catholic community I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it without medium and long-term costings I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it at the beginning of January, when it has not even completed the process in mid-November, is beyond comprehension.

The consequence of the policy and driving out poorer children from the schools of their choice will be to change the nature of Catholic secondary schools. Those schools admit children irrespective of parental background or academic achievement. If the ending of free school transport causes children from poorer backgrounds to transfer to other schools, their places may be taken by non-Catholics from better-off families. The character of those schools may be imperilled over time.

Almost finally, I wish to deal with traffic congestion because this is partly a transport debate as well as an education debate. In some ways, although it would be a conceit, perhaps two Ministers should reply to the debate rather than one, but I appreciate that it is not beyond my hon. Friend the Minister's ability to speak about transport as well as education. All hon. Members know the effects of taking children to and from school on travel congestion. What joy it is, when the school holidays come, to be able to drive to any place that one wishes and arrive on time and, occasionally, even before time.

It has been estimated that between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, 11 per cent. of all cars on the road in term time are taking children to school. When we reach the magical point of 10 minutes to 9, 20 per cent. of all cars on the road are involved in school trips. To take away free school transport can only aggravate the situation and a greater burden will he placed on parents, children and other road users. There is a particular problem for parents with children at both a local primary school and a secondary school. The primary school, particularly one in the Catholic faith, is likely to be in one town, and the secondary school is highly likely to be in another town many miles distant. There is some considerable distance between Chelmsford and Braintree, so it would be necessary for those parents to be in two places at the same time as they transport their children to school.

The single most effective way, in my judgment, to reduce car traffic congestion is to increase rather than diminish school transport. It is for that reason that the Government have tested yellow bus schemes in three separate areas and are bringing forward proposals in a jauntily named document, "Beating the traffic—a new approach to the school run". I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he replied to me in a letter dated 13 October. In that letter he indicated that local authorities would be invited to pilot schemes to support children travelling to denominational schools. It is my judgment that the county council would be far better advised to work closely with the Secretary of State to see not only how free school transport can be retained in our county, but how it can be increased and enhanced.

The action of the county council flies in the face of all considered thinking about both transport and education. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister who is kindly replying to this debate to seek to persuade those in charge at Essex county council to reconsider and to return free school transport to Catholic secondary schools in the county of Essex.

6.12 pm
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

May I thank the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), my neighbour, for allowing me to take part in this debate which refers to a matter of importance not only to mid-Essex but to the entire county? I found little with which to disagree in his elegant speech, which was equally interesting in terms of what he did not say, quite apart from what he did say.

A serious problem is affecting the whole county. but it is focused on mid-Essex, because, as the hon. Member for Braintree said, he has a Catholic secondary school in his constituency, and I have a Catholic secondary school in my constituency, St. John Payne school. Great concern has been expressed by parents, teachers and governors of both schools about the proposals by Essex county council that are currently out to consultation. I, too, have met both pupils and representatives of the teaching staff of St. John Payne school, and have had an opportunity to discuss their concerns with them and to learn at first hand about the proposals. I have also received many letters about those proposals. They pose a significant problem and if there is a way around it that avoids school transport being withdrawn from denominational schools, all of us in the Chamber would obviously be united in agreement that that is how we would want the process to end.

There is a problem, however, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) alluded earlier in an intervention: the formula for funding local government finance was changed for this financial year, and it had a significant impact on the county of Essex. As I understand it, the average increase in local government finance this year was just over 5.5 per cent. Essex got the third worst settlement, just ahead of Kent and Sussex, with 3.5 per cent.

As the Minister and the hon. Member for Braintree know, the significant majority of a local authority's budget is spent on education and there are specific requirements on that spending that must be fulfilled. As Essex county council received only a 3.5 per cent. funding increase, it had significantly less money to provide its services than it did the previous year. Owing to the statutory requirements on its education spending, it had considerable problems funding other services, such as social services. Ironically, it did not have sufficient money for its education budget either and had to decide the best way forward when it was faced with that problem. The council wants to avoid cutting back on teaching staff or spending for books and equipment in our schools, so it has examined its transport budget. Colleagues and county councillors have given me no inkling that the Government are prepared to think again, but perhaps the Minister will give us some good news during his speech. In the light of the consultations and representations, however, I hope that a solution will be found so that some of the problems that the hon. Member for Braintree rightly raised will not be realised. I hope that the council will be able to come up with a solution.

The simple way in which we could get around the problem and secure proper funding for the county council would be for the Government to re-examine the funding formula for Essex and ensure that they rectify the fiddling that many people in local government and Conservative Members believe to have happened. There is a strong body of opinion that the formula was changed solely to take money away from the shire counties that, ironically, tend not to be controlled by Labour so that it could be pushed into Labour heartlands to try to stave off any problems in the local election last May when the party faced re-election.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)

Disgraceful.

Mr. Burns

The Minister may say that that is disgraceful, but he goes around the country a lot and must talk to local education authorities throughout England. He must be aware that there is a school of thought that the situation that I outlined is why the funding formula was changed.

If we are to prevent the problems faced by Essex county council from happening, the Minister should use his not inconsiderable influence to encourage the Government to re-examine the basic funding formula and ensure that Essex county council gets a fair funding increase so that it is able to provide education services. That would have a knock-on effect on other services, which would mean that it would not have to take extremely difficult decisions such as that on which it is consulting. I hope that a compromise can be reached that will put off the implementation of the policy.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

There is little point in arguing party political points this evening. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the gravity of the situation for the continuation of Catholic education? If the policy were sustained, Catholic schools would change beyond all recognition within a generation—there would be none left. That is the gravity of the situation, so the matter should be a priority for Essex county council, as it is for other hard-pressed authorities.

Mr. Burns

I thought I had made it plain that I hope the proposals do not come to fruition. I fully accept and recognise that they will have an impact, which for some families will be significant, on all denominational education, which in my constituency is primarily Catholic. I assume the hon. Gentleman, like me, fully supports the concept of denominational education.

Andrew Mackinlay

I am a beneficiary of it.

Mr. Burns

I am glad to hear it.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is not a party political issue, but he misses the point. The nub of the problem is the local government finance settlement, which was particularly detrimental to the county of Essex, as it was to Kent and Sussex, when the money arrived in April this year.

6.20 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

I remind the Minister and the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that the problem has a great effect on my constituency and other places in Essex. Southend has two Catholic schools, St. Thomas More, which is a school for boys, and St. Bernard's, which is a school for girls. A substantial number of pupils come across the border from Essex county council, which we have escaped from, to go to our schools. We also have four grammar schools, two for boys and two for girls, which hon. Members know about.

Children come from Essex to attend our schools because it is well known that the standard of education generally in Southend is high compared with neighbouring areas. A huge number of children want to come to Southend first, for the good education, secondly, for the grammar schools and the two good Catholic schools and thirdly, for their traditions. The hon. Member for Braintree made a good point about the effect of the proposals on poor families. That is encouraging. I hope that we unite against legislation on top-up fees because of their effect on poor families.

There is a big problem, which the Minister can resolve. Yesterday morning, I took the head teacher of that splendid school in Southend, St. Thomas More, and others to meet the Minister. They told him the terrible things that were happening in Southend. Does the hon. Member for Braintree, who takes a great interest in Southend, know that for the first time we are having to discontinue the teaching of Latin, not because we want to or because it is horrible, but because there is not enough money? Not only has Southend-on-Sea borough council spent every penny the Minister provided, but it has been given an extra £700,000 on top because of the financial crisis it faces. Despite that extra money, a teacher called Mr. Gulley from Temple Sutton school told the Minister yesterday that he had to sack teachers because the necessary money was not available.

The Minister must know, on the basis of what happened yesterday and what he has heard today, that Essex county council and Southend-on-Sea borough council have to contemplate doing horrible things that they do not want to do simply because the money is not available. Why is the money not available and why are they thinking of introducing such strange plans? First, the pay scale has been shortened, so teachers have to be paid more in a shorter time. Secondly, the increase in superannuation payments has not been fully funded by the Government. Thirdly, there are national insurance increases to consider. All those mean that the county and the borough have to consider doing things that they do not want to do.

Let us solve the problem that faces the parents of children going to Catholic schools in Essex and the splendid ones in Southend-on-Sea. The only way to do that, however, is to find a financial solution. There is no other way. We could put the rates up. but we have already done that. The Minister must be aware that the poor ratepayers in Southend and Essex have been hammered. I am sure that we could do a deal. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Braintree, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and I told the county council that, despite the appalling financial settlement, the Minister had announced in an Adjournment debate that he was providing an extra £2 million for the county of Essex, the proposals would be dropped and a comprehensive, sensible arrangement would be agreed.

I am sure that, like me, hon. Members believe that the proposals that the council is considering are not advantageous. As has happened in Southend, the financial difficulties would stop educational training and prevent us from getting good teachers. If the Minister tells us that he will provide an extra £2 million for the county, I am sure that we can meet the county officials and councillors and solve the problem. The only thing that worries me a wee bit is the fact that people may play at politics. I hope that that will not happen, because it is in children's interests that we find solutions.

We have good Catholic secondary schools in Southend, and want to preserve the opportunity for the people of Essex, with all their problems, to come to our excellent schools. It would be tragic if they were prevented from doing so. The Minister alone can solve the problem. If Members from all parties presented a popular front we could resolve this with our friends from Essex, if only the Minister were sensible and gave the county a fairer deal, as he has done for other counties.

6.26 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)

It is always a pleasure to be offered the chance to make six or seven friends with a quick bit of spending, but I fear I would make a large number of enemies if I followed the advice of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing this debate and on his long-standing interest in the topic. I believe that he secured a debate in July 2000 on related issues, and throughout his time in Parliament he has made Ministers and the House aware of the links between transport and education, and the importance of transport to successful education. He therefore deserves the thanks of the House for his work.

The Government recognise the problems and frustrations experienced by many parents regarding school transport, whether provided privately, such as travel by car, or by a local authority. The latest figures show that over the past 20 years car use has doubled, and that one in five cars on the road at 8.45 am or 8.50 am are taking children to school. Many of those cars are taking children to primary schools, some of which are denominational, and many make journeys of between one and three miles. The House will know that the public purse spends more than £0.5bn a year on school transport, about half of which goes towards special needs provision, leaving about £0.25 billion for other school transport.

For the benefit of the House, I shall deal with the legal position, then turn to issues affecting Essex in particular. The contribution of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will tempt me into areas of local government finance, and I look forward to illuminating the House on some of the finer points of the matter. However, it is important to make it clear that transport is always necessary for a pupil of compulsory school age who attends the nearest suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. Local education authorities do not have a duty to provide free transport for pupils whose parents have chosen to send them to another school, even if it is beyond statutory walking distance. Those cases are entirely at the discretion of individual local authorities.

I shall set out the legal position for the House. The Education Act 1996 sets out LEA responsibilities to provide free transport to school for pupils of compulsory school age. Section 509(1) requires LEAs to make arrangements for the provision of transport that they consider necessary for pupils to attend school. That transport must be free. Section 509(3) enables authorities to pay all or part of a pupil's travelling expenses where transport is not "necessary", and I shall say more about arrangements for discretionary transport later. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure that every child can attend school, and section 444 of the 1996 Act states that no parent can be prosecuted for their child failing to attend school if the LEA fails to provide suitable transport for children who live beyond the statutory walking distance.

As my hon. Friend said, LEAs must provide free transport to denominational schools where pupils live beyond the statutory walking distances and where a denominational school is designated as the nearest school. Where pupils live closer to a non-denominational school, LEAs may provide free transport to a denominational school of a parent's choice if they consider that it is "necessary", or they may exercise discretion and provide free or subsidised transport.

Current DFES guidance to LEAs on denominational transport is that the Secretary of State hopes that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements of the kind that I described, some of which have been associated with local agreements or understandings about the siting of denominational schools. The Secretary of State continues to attach importance to the opportunity that many parents have to choose a school or college in accordance with their religious convictions. It is important to say, however, that there is no statutory duty requiring LEAs to provide free transport to denominational schools.

I remind hon. Members that statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance for young people with travel costs. Local authorities have powers to establish concessionary fare schemes for young people in their area under the Transport Act 1985. About 40 per cent. of shire counties have such schemes, many of which assist pupils making the home-to-school journey. In the metropolitan areas, all six passenger transport authorities provide flat fares or half fares on local buses. Tempted as I am to delve into the role of passenger transport authorities in transport policies, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go too far down that route. In the capital, Transport for London, not the local authorities, operates a season ticket discount scheme for young people at roughly half fare. That is a commercial scheme without Government subsidy. Under-11s will be entitled to free bus and tram travel from January 2004.

My hon. Friend did not ask about post-16 transport, either in general or in relation to denominational schools, but I am happy to write to him if he is interested in that particular issue.

I shall move on to the management of budgets, which involves critical decisions for LEAs. There are many calls on LEA budgets and school budgets. Funding for home-to-school transport forms part of an authority's LEA budget. We do not seek to influence the level of that budget, unlike the schools budget: it is for authorities to decide on the level of their LEA budget within the total resources available. In doing so, they will of course need to provide a level of service consistent with their statutory duties. There are often calls for improvements in home-to-school transport financed from the education budget—although it is worth repeating that expenditure is already at a high level and has risen fast in recent years. Over the past 10 years, annual increases have been between 6 per cent. and 11 per cent.—well ahead of inflation—and the cost of transporting pupils with special needs has accounted for an increasing proportion of the total spend on home-to-school transport.

In preparing for the debate, I was struck by the fact that some authorities have sought to contain costs and improve services through a range of measures such as integrating education and social care transport provision—for example, in Oxfordshire and Worcestershire—and introducing staggered school starting times, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) mentioned, and which has been done in the Isle of Wight and in west Sussex. Elsewhere, LEAs have developed dedicated bus services to raise the standard of provision: that has increased uptake at minimal cost and helped to ameliorate pollution. Transport authorities, education authorities and schools are working together to put in place cost effective, high quality provision for schoolchildren—for example, the new services provided by bus operator Harrogate and District, in Harrogate, and by the Greater Manchester Passenger transport authority, in Wigan and Stockport.

I turn to the situation in Essex. I know that Essex LEA's proposals are of great concern to that county's residents, including county councillors and hon. Members who represent Essex constituencies. Most recently, on 16 October, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked the Secretary of State what representations he has received over proposals by the LEA to charge travel costs for pupils attending faith schools. The Department has received more than 50 letters from hon. Members, councillors, parents and schools. All opposed the proposals, and a number complained that the consultation process was flawed. The local education authority will obviously want to take that seriously. The matter needs to be considered in the appropriate way in due course.

Let me deal with funding. The pot of money is limited and that requires difficult decisions about priorities. The position in Essex is different from that which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford described. Since 1997–98, per capita spending on pupils aged three to 19 has increased by 24 per cent. in real terms. That is £670 per pupil. In 2003–04, Essex received an increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil on top of a separate transfer, which compensated for teachers' pay and the transfer of nursery grant and infant class size grant. Apart from the education formula spending share, there is the important revenue support grant. In Essex, it increased by 3.8 per cent. on top of a transfer of £586 million to provide funding for teachers' pension contributions.

Mr. Burns

What about the rest of the country?

Mr. Miliband

I shall deal with that shortly.

A further increase of 3.2 per cent. reflected the end of some standards fund grants. Like other local education authorities, Essex has also received generous standards fund increases, from a mere £7 million in 1998 to £46.8 million in 2002–03. Capital funding has increased from £13.8 million in 1998–99 to £64.4 million in 2003–04. For this year, the education formula spending total is £666 million, of which £20 million is spent on free home-to-school transport for approximately 21,000 pupils. Next year, the floor increase will he 5 per cent. per pupil—

Mr. Burns

What about this year?

Mr. Miliband

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to talk about this year, but Essex county council's proposals are for next year. That is the focus of the current debate. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the meeting that I held with his constituents yesterday. I do not deny that some schools in some parts of the country have experienced genuine problems this year. The Secretary of State has dealt with them in successive statements in the House.

Last week, my right hon. Friend announced a floor of 5 per cent. per pupil for every LEA in the country. That is significant protection for LEAs. In addition, he announced a transitional grant of £9.8 million for next year—I was disappointed that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford did not mention that. It is intended to target problems in school budgets. The hon. Gentleman also made the extremely serious allegation that the Government were somehow fiddling the local government funding system. I reject that. He should know that there are three simple parts to funding education. First, there is an entitlement of £2,100 per pupil.

Mr. Pollard

Will the Minister enlighten us about the way in which Essex fared in the pecking order for transitional grant?

Mr. Miliband

Much as I should like to give my hon. Friend a full recitation. I cannot do that.

Mr. Pollard

I was trying to help my hon. Friend. Essex came second after Kent, and Hertfordshire came third.

Mr. Miliband

I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that Essex benefited from the Government's decision to ensure that every LEA has at least a 12 per cent. increase over two years.

The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that the education formula was fiddled.

Mr. Burns

The Minister must have misunderstood me. I said not that the education formula was fiddled but that the funding formula for the whole of local government was fiddled this year in the way it was changed.

Mr. Miliband

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not believe that the education formula was fiddled. I understand that he is making a wider point about local government funding and that is probably a subject for another debate.

Let me try to end the debate on a more harmonious note. Hon. Members know that the Government launched a document about school transport on 17 September. It offers a way forward for several LEAs, including Essex. The plan set out ways in which walking, cycling and bus use could be extended for journeys to school. The document explained that we were planning to legislate as soon as possible to allow LEAs to trial new approaches to school transport.

We envisage enabling legislation which would allow a number of pilot schemes to run for several years, trialling new approaches to school transport. LEAs will be able to charge for school transport, but not to the extent that parents find that the family car is a more cost-effective option. We want LEAs interested in trialling new arrangements to consult their schools, pupils, parents, bus operators and further education colleges on an alternative scheme, along the lines of the new post-16 arrangements that have been discussed in the House on several occasions. Authorities might, for example, design and consult on a scheme that supersedes the statutory walking distances; enter into innovative arrangements with schools or other agencies to provide school transport services fitted around an extended school day; and investigate school transport provision catering for the circumstances of denominational schools.

The primary objective of any local scheme would be to increase the choices available to parents and pupils for ensuring effective home-to-school transport. If we create such flexibilities, we envisage that we would look carefully at the experience of the first few authorities pioneering new arrangements before proceeding further. I hope that Essex county council, along with the schools and parents in the area, will reflect on the opportunities that are presented by the scheme. I hope that when they reflect on the strong statements that have been made on both sides of the Chamber, expressing concern about the proposals that have been made, they will also examine the value-for-money arguments that are important to any decision on the priorities for school spending, and bear in mind the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, whose expertise has really helped to enlighten the House today.

6.42 pm

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order.

7 pm

On resuming—

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock.