HL Deb 29 October 2003 vol 654 cc268-83

3.17 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. I am placing the details in the Library of the House.

"On 17th July this year I set out to the House the principles which I would follow to restore confidence in the school funding system, deliver stability in school budgets and give certainty for head teachers and governors. I promised a further update in the Autumn.

"Responsibility for school funding is shared between government, LEAs and the governing bodies and head teachers. We all want to ensure that schools can plan and manage their resources effectively to achieve the highest possible standards. I want to express my appreciation today for the commitment of all the education partners to these ambitions, and for the constructive way in which representatives of schools and local government have worked with us. I am confident that this will continue.

"As I said in July, I intend to support schools in three ways: a minimum increase in every school's budget; additional resources to help every LEA to support schools with additional pressures; and targeted transitional support to help all schools to achieve balanced budgets.

"I promised to introduce for 2004–05 and 2005–06 a minimum per pupil funding guarantee for every school, taking account of the average cost pressures facing schools in those years. I will achieve that by increasing both LEA core funding and the funding received from DfES grants.

"My officials have examined the relevant cost pressures—including increases in teachers' pay where we have assumed an inflation-led settlement. These pressures naturally vary between schools. However, following extensive consultation with our education partners, my best estimate for next year is that the combined effect of these factors on the average school will be of the order of 3.4 per cent.

"Each school receives funding through LEAs in two main ways: funding directly related to pupil numbers and funding relating to fixed costs. We have concluded, after careful consideration with our education partners, that pupil-led elements should rise by 4 per cent per pupil and fixed elements by 4 per cent in cash.

"This means that a school whose pupil numbers stay the same between 2003–04 and 2004–05 will be guaranteed a 4 per cent per pupil increase in its overall budget next year.

"A school whose pupil numbers decline will receive a funding increase of more than 4 per cent per pupil, to help cover fixed costs. However, because of declining pupil numbers, the number of primary schools with reduced cash budgets—and so possibly staff numbers—will be significant, as there are around 50,000 fewer primary pupils this year, with a similar reduction next year. Secondary schools with falling rolls will be in the same position.

"A school whose pupil numbers are increasing will be guaranteed at least a 4 per cent increase for all its existing pupils. Those schools will be guaranteed a rise of at least 4 per cent in their cash budgets and an overall per pupil increase of at least 3.4 per cent.

"I said in July that we would consider carefully the position of very small schools. Those will receive an increase of at least 4 per cent if their pupil numbers do not change. However, our general approach may not be appropriate for very small schools with much higher than average fixed costs. Therefore, funding for schools with 75 pupils or fewer will be determined according to their LEA's own school funding formula. For special schools, whose funding is normally based on places rather than pupil numbers, the guarantee will be a minimum 4 per cent increase in funding per place. LEA funding for specified costs, such as rates, will continue to be funded at cost and will be apart from the guarantee.

"The 4 per cent level at which 1 have set the minimum schools guarantee already takes some account of cost variation around the 3.4 per cent average. However, I should stress that that guarantee represents only the minimum increase that a school might receive next year. Across the country, many schools will receive per pupil increases of more than 4 per cent, since the overall increase in education formula spending will be more than 5.5 per cent per pupil. The final budgets will be determined by LEAs, in consultation with schools forums and after the local government finance settlement has been announced. However, today's announcement should—subject to pupil numbers— give schools an early indication of the minimum increase in their budgets.

"For 2005–06, my expectation is that the minimum schools guarantee will again be at least 4 per cent for a school with unchanged pupil numbers. I will keep that under review and announce the final figure in due course.

"Other elements of schools funding will also be increased on the same basis. Thus the Learning and Skills Council will increase all its funding rates for school sixth forms by 4 per cent in 2004–05, and will increase current school sixth-form allocations for the period April to July 2004 by 4 per cent. Similar arrangements will apply in 2005–06.

"The changes to the Standards Fund caused significant problems for some schools this year, so in July I undertook to reverse the cuts which had previously been announced for the next two years. That additional spending is reflected in the Standards Fund allocations which are being issued to local authorities today.

"In 2004–05, schools will generally receive a cash increase of 4 per cent on this year's Standards Fund allocations. There will be some limited exceptions. Those include: grants where the amount of funding is directly related to actual costs; specialist schools, where I increased the funding rate in September this year and will make a further increase to £129 per pupil in 2005; and grants where funding is being especially targeted for policy reasons. For example, we are uprating the ethnic minority achievement grant by 4 per cent, but also taking the first steps towards a fairer distribution. However, no school will receive less ethnic minority achievement grant in cash terms in 2004–05 than it is receiving this year.

"Moreover, next year schools will receive either a 4 per cent increase on their per pupil schools standards grant, or the value of their announced SSG band for 2004–05, whichever is higher. Both Standards Fund and school standards grant will be uprated again— in line with the minimum schools guarantee—in 2005–06. I am also adding resources to revenue support grant to reflect in LEA baselines the budget support grants paid to some authorities in 2003–04.

"The total additional funding to maintain and uprate the Standards Fund and school standards grant, and to mainstream the budget support grants, will be £435 million in 2004–05 and £520 million in 2005-06.I am placing full details in the Library.

"I can also confirm that threshold pay costs will be fully funded next year. As at present, schools will be able to draw down well over £500 million from my department on a demand-led basis. In addition, the £205 million we have allocated this year for performance-related pay will be uprated at least in line with the headline pay settlement for next year. If proper arrangements for point 3 of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004.

"The schools guarantee must of course be backed by adequate resources for the local education authorities. Next year, I will therefore set the minimum increase in the schools formula spending share at 5 per cent per pupil. Again, that is a minimum—most increases will be higher. The provisional SFSS increase for each authority will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement, but we expect the ceiling to be at least 6.5 per cent per pupil.

"As I said in July, every authority will receive sufficient grant in each of the next two years to cover its formula increase in education spending. Given that commitment, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be writing to authorities to set out the Government's clear expectation that every LEA passports in full its SFSS increase into a matching increase in its schools budget, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget, and I will be prepared to use those powers if it is necessary to do so.

"I also expect LEA spending on their central education budgets to rise no faster than spending on schools. I am confident that most LEAs will concentrate on increasing schools' delegated budgets over the next two years, but the draft regulations that I have issued reflect my determination to achieve that. Under my proposals, LEAs will be able to seek an exemption in exceptional local circumstances. I will confirm the minimum increase in SFSS for 2005–06 next autumn but, if the minimum schools guarantee is 4 per cent, I would expect the minimum increase in SFSS again to be around 5 per cent.

"My proposals have been drawn up to support schools. But that support will not be at the expense of other services. In line with the commitment that I made in July, the Government will be providing additional resources for other services, including children's social services, to support spending in those services. The details will be announced as part of next month's local government finance settlement.

"My statement in July emphasised my commitment to sustaining school workforce reforms. That commitment stands. Much progress can be made from schools managing their total resources—people and money—more strategically and working in different ways. Over the next two years, the increase in resources for schools— through schools formula spending share and DfES grants, and including the additional resources that I am confirming today— provides headroom over the average cost pressures that schools face, to help schools make the most of the national agreement.

"The primary responsibility for maintaining sound financial management rests with schools themselves and their LEAs. I acknowledge that LEAs need more flexibility to help schools to balance budgets over the next two years, so I am amending the regulations to enable LEAs to target their resources at those schools which have particular problems, whatever their source. It is the responsibility of LEAs to use that flexibility. I expect them to do so and am confident that my expectation will be fully shared by the communities they serve.

"However, I do recognise that there are a limited number of cases where balancing budgets is beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs in the short term. That is most likely in those LEAs that have received the lowest increases in education formula spending and DfES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05. For those LEAs, I therefore propose to make a targeted transitional grant available over the next two years and I am issuing indicative figures today. Those assume that that grant will be available to take the increase in funding for all authorities over the two-year period, up to a minimum of 12 per cent. That is well ahead of our best estimate of unavoidable pressures for those years. I estimate that that will cost around £120 million and benefit around a third of LEAs. The final allocations will be confirmed at the time of the local government finance settlement.

"However, that additional resource will be provided only where I am convinced that the LEA has made every effort to support its schools from within its own resources; that is, it should be passporting its SFSS increase in full; it should be directing its resources to delegated schools budgets as far as possible; and it should be intending to target the schools in greatest difficulty. It will be a condition of grant that each LEA prepares, with the schools concerned, a costed and credible plan to bring its schools' budgets into balance by 2006–07.

"In 2005–06, I propose to make further grant available to the same authorities at around half the level of that provided in 2004–05. Again, I will confirm the detailed figures next autumn.

"LEAs whose increases between 2002–03 and 2004–05 were greater than 12 per cent should be able to resolve local difficulties within their own resources. However, I do recognise that there are individual schools which have spent above their income this year and may therefore face difficulties in getting their budgets back into balance. Therefore, where an LEA can put forward a compelling argument that additional, transitional funds are needed in the short term—above and beyond those already available to it—and in order to avoid real damage to children's education, I am prepared to consider bringing forward DfES grant payments, so that the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for that purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what it will receive in future years. I will confirm the maximum amount that I might be prepared to make available to each LEA in that way following the local government finance settlement, but 1 expect the calculation to be based on a maximum grant of £300,000 per authority, or 0.2 per cent of the authority's total education resources in 2004–05, if that is higher. Such grant would be subject to conditions similar to those for the targeted transitional grant.

"I am confident that the measures I have outlined today will help to create stability for schools. We will do all we can to help LEAs work with their schools, where necessary, to get budgets back into balance over the next two years. That is because, for any school, an annual excess of spending over income is not sustainable. I acknowledge that getting back into balance may mean difficult decisions. Where school spending varies significantly from the average—where 80 per cent is spent on staff costs and 20 per cent on non-staff costs—or from its income, the school needs to act to get back into balance.

"It is therefore vital that schools are well able to plan and manage their resources effectively. More and better support for schools is needed in that area, so I am announcing today that my department has commissioned KPMG to work with the National College for School Leadership and headteachers' associations to design and develop a varied menu of support and guidance to help schools' budget management. That support will be available from the turn of the year. It will prioritise schools in those LEAs that are in receipt of the targeted transitional grant.

"The proposals that I have announced today are designed to help restore confidence in the school funding system and increase stability in school budgets. I am grateful for the help and advice that we have received from our education partners. I have set out the framework for the school funding system over the next two years. It is now for LEAs to address the needs of every school, and for heads and governors to ensure that the resources they receive are used effectively. We all share responsibility for school funding and we must continue to work together to get it right".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.35 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very long and extremely complicated Statement. If there are other Members of this House who have understood it better than I have, I will hand over my job to them.

We were promised transparency. However, the Statement reads like a Russian novel. One has to return again and again to previous references in order to track the promised money and to make a judgment whether schools will be better off as a result of the announcement. Transparent the Statement is not.

The Government told us in a convoluted way that schools, parents, children and LEAs will all be grateful for the Statement and that all will be well in the world of school-based education. At this stage, we must take the Government at their word; and at this stage, we do. However, it is important to record that much of the complexity of the announcement reflects the necessity for the department to address the chaos of last year, which was frankly of the Government's own making.

Last year, the Government blamed a failure of modelling and tried in vain to lay some of the blame on LEAs. The fact that a number of financial adjustments had to be made during the course of the year, and the conditions which created a legacy of uneven provision across the country, are testament to the ill thought-through and ill trumpeted settlement last year.

Children have suffered; teachers and headteachers have made huge sacrifices, many losing their jobs; and ancillary staff have also been affected. The Secretary of State in another place, when referring to the list presented to him by my honourable friend Damian Green of authorities with deficit budgets this year, accused those LEAs of scaremongering. Do the Government believe that the £14 million deficit of the Secretary of State's own county council, Norfolk, and the £22 million deficit of Kent County Council are merely figments of their imagination? If so, will the Minister provide some assessment of what he thinks those deficits are?

It is clear that more time will be needed to absorb the detail of the Statement. However, to help us understand it, will the Minister clarify the nature of the base measurement that was used for the 4 per cent-per-pupil increase? For example, those schools that were hard hit last year and those schools that benefited—some considerably—will remain in the same differential position. If there is a flat 4 per cent increase for all pupils, nothing will change. The schools that suffered most will benefit least and the schools that gained most will benefit greatly. I know that some money has been made available to address discrepancies. However, there was a threat in the Statement that that money will be clawed back over time.

What is the split between the Treasury and the LEA? More particularly, what will be the impact of the settlement on the local taxpayer? How much new money is planned to come from the Government?

What flexibility will there be for LEAs? What flexibility will they have if the only way in which they can meet all the demands and government guarantees that go with the settlement is by raising more local taxes? If the Secretary of State has threatened to use his powers to stop them raising those taxes, that money can come from only one other place and that is from other services. The Secretary of State has give a guarantee that that will not happen. Is there therefore a guarantee that the cash which will come from government will allow local taxpayers a fair deal and will allow LEAs properly to meet the obligations set out in the Statement?

Teachers are very concerned that funding will be inadequate to meet the pay awards to those who qualify under the performance-related pay scheme. Can salary increases be funded? Have the Government taken on board the fact that as pay increases, so, too, will national insurance? It will increase not only for individual employees throughout the education sector, but also for employers—the local authorities—as the pay bill increases.

The long Statement contains only two lines about special educational needs, indicating that it is to receive the same 4 per cent increase. However, there is no mention of the additional costs incurred as a direct result of the Government's legislation. Special educational needs have had a raw deal from the Government. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that some LEAs were spending too much on SEN. How much is too much? What comfort is there in the Statement for children with SEN?

Will the Minister tell the House how the 3.4 per cent increase, deemed to be the cost increases faced by schools, is made up? What are the constituent elements? Will the learning and skills councils allocate a 4 per cent increase in funding to all students, including those additional students in sixth-form school-based education? Is the additional money allocated for under-achieving ethnic minority children announced in the Statement to be new money met by the Government, or will it come from the overall education budget?

Meanwhile, we have to take the Government at their word. Like the local education authorities, the parents, the teachers and other staff, but most especially the children, we will be vigilant in examining how the proposal works in practice. Once again, the Government have raised the stakes. Throughout education, expectations are high. Last year, those expectations were cruelly dashed and government Ministers passed the buck to others.

Only when the detail of the settlement is completed by the Deputy Prime Minister will we be able to make a judgment as to the merits of the Statement and the degree to which children in the classroom will benefit—and, of course, the degree to which local taxpayers, who are suffering sorely from past settlements, are treated more reasonably.

The Secretary of State claims that this settlement will restore confidence, deliver stability and give certainty. Following the débâcle of last year, there is a mountain to climb. Much is now in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister.

3.43 p.m.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. 1 echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the complexity of the Statement.

The Statement was necessary because government announcements made in April about the funding of schools came unstitched during the summer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, it was initially blamed on local authorities. However, it became clear that ultimately the fault lay with the department for failing to do its sums. That became clear once the Select Committee for Education and Skills in another place looked at the matter in detail.

In July, the Minister made a second Statement in order to explain what had gone wrong and he then promised this follow-up Statement. He then said that he would wait until the teachers' pay review commission had reported but it has not yet done so. He now says that the Government anticipate the pay settlement taking place, but I am surprised that the Statement has been made before the review has been announced. I hope that the figures incorporated in the Statement mirror those which will come forward in the pay review. Presumably, the Secretary of State has prior knowledge of that.

We on these Benches welcome two other aspects of the Statement. First, it gives schools longer to plan next year's budgets. Last year, everything came unstitched at the last moment but this year they will have more time. However, they must still wait on the local government settlements, which will take time to put together. In the next month, most LEAs will be rushing around trying to sort out precisely what the Statement and its implications mean.

We also welcome the additional money which appears to be forthcoming. I say "appears to be" because it is by no means clear that there will be any new money. Will the Minister say whether there is any new money in the coffers? The only additional money I can identify as forthcoming is the £100 million to £120 million which will go into the transitional budgets. Equally, the Statement implies that the Government are withholding the increases for teachers moving up to the third level of the upper pay spine and perhaps that £ 100 million will be clawed back from the pay increase. Will the Minister clarify that issue and let us know whether the Government are expecting to save approximately £100 million in not paying the increases on that upper part of the pay spine?

Last year, the NUT survey estimated that 20,000 teachers and support staff had lost their jobs as a result of the mess in funding. Will the Minister clarify the situation in regard to primary schools, where rolls are falling? It has been mentioned that 50,000 pupils will be affected in each of the next two years because of that fall. My impression is that the guarantee does not fully apply to primary schools.

Some problems arise here. First, 1,000 extra teachers are being trained for the postgraduate certificate in education. Is the department confident that there will be jobs for them in primary schools next year? Is it confident that it will be able to meet the obligations to which it has committed itself? Secondly, will the Minister clarify the issue surrounding the pay spine? The Statement indicates that if proper arrangements for point three of the upper pay scale can be settled, further resources will be allocated in September 2004. What are those further resources? Where are they coming from? Is that new money or not?

In relation to the Standards Fund, the Statement makes clear—and it was clear in July—that the Government intend to reverse their previous decision and that the money will go directly to the schools instead of being merged into the general LEA budget. However, I would like the Minister to clarify one issue. There appears to be a reshuffling of the DfES budget in order to find some of the money which is to be forthcoming for the transitional arrangements, for example. As a result, those authorities worst hit last time will be somewhat better off this time. We mentioned, for example, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. Is the correct inference that the LEAs which did better under last year's settlement will be doing worse under this one?

Furthermore, although we were assured that the workload agreement is going forward, is there really enough money in the package for that? At present, the amounts available seem to vary enormously from school to school and, indeed, from LEA to LEA.

I have two further short questions. First, it is not clear to me how schools which were running deficits this year will cope. Transitional arrangements are in place but, so far as I can see, they are loan rather than grant arrangements. I wonder how far the Minister is confident that those schools will be able to recoup the necessary money and pay it back. I am also particularly concerned about schools which borrowed against capital this year in order to meet their expenses and whether that means that they will have to forgo capital improvements that they had hoped for.

Finally, I have a question concerning the money for sixth forms and sixth-form colleges which comes from the LSC budget. Again, will the Government put new money into the LSC budget for that or will other parts of the budget have to be cut back in order to meet those commitments?

3.51 p.m.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I am grateful for the responses to the Statement from the two noble Baronesses. I agree that the Statement is complex but that does not mean that it is not transparent. It merely means that we have to work very hard to analyse carefully the exact implications. But it was ever thus with school funding and local authority funding. I shall certainly attempt to clarify the matters which have been the subject of questioning from the Opposition.

First, I believe that the welcome for the Statement has been a little more grudging than is justified. Let us take the question of new money. Effectively, as set out in the Statement, the Government are providing £435 million in 2004–05 and £520 million in 2005–06 for schools over and above the amounts previously announced. That meets some of the detailed points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She asked whether there was new money and the answer is "yes".

Secondly, in being critical of the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should recognise that we are putting additional resources into schools. We all recognise the problems that were created last year when certain aspects of the model by which schools would receive the money did not prove to be as valid as we had hoped. But that problem was created by an extremely generous government allocation to schools. The Government fulfilled their commitment to spend more on education to an extent that, in my view, neither of the other two parties can remotely match. That is certainly the case with regard to the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As a tax-cutting party, it is looking for substantial cuts in public expenditure and should therefore be rather more cautious about challenging a government who are having some difficulties with their expenditure.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the amounts of £435 million and £520 million respectively are to be provided on top of that announced following the Comprehensive Spending Review?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, that is exactly right. They are increased sums of money. The precise point raised by the noble Baroness was whether some of the figures, which clearly require additional sums to be allocated, represent new money. The figures that I have just quoted are the global sums of new money available.

I recognise the validity of some of the points addressed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerning the problems experienced last year by, for example, Norfolk and Kent. We have listened carefully to their representations. They are among a group of counties for which we are making specific proposals to increase resources in recognition of the fact that the deficits which they identified had some validity. It is not that we accept the total position which they present in any way, shape or form. We recognise that a quarter of the counties have experienced difficulties, and that is what we are seeking to address.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the Minister has missed my point. His colleague in another place, the Secretary of State, called those counties "scaremongering". Does the noble Lord agree with that? If they are not scaremongering, what is the assessment of the deficit?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, my right honourable friend indicated that the figures were subject to challenge in the department against a background of a number of authorities clearly needing extra resources this year. When I repeated the Statement, noble Lords heard clearly and explicitly that we are meeting some of those increases. However, we do not accept some of the more extensive figures quoted by local authorities. We have held discussions with them and my right honourable friend made it absolutely clear that, following this Statement, he would continue to hold discussions with local authorities in that category. The local authorities participating in those discussions have done so very effectively. They recognise that there is a conscious intention on the part of the Government to address the difficulties experienced last year by some 30 counties.

I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness concerning students with special educational needs. I recognise her long-standing commitment to, and interest in, that area. We are proposing that the same 4 per cent should be allocated for improving the opportunities and support for students with special educational needs. We are merely indicating that expenditure by some authorities last year represented such a large percentage increase that it could not be sustained continually. There had to be recognition of the fact that improvements must be made. The 4 per cent will certainly be in addition to the base line created by those authorities when they were generous last year.

However—the noble Baroness herself has made this point from time to time—we also emphasise that part of the problem which arose last year was that money that we had expected to go into the general schools budget was directed by local education authorities to other priorities. We are insistent that the priorities of schools are properly identified. That is why, when local authorities apply for additional transitional support, we expect them to set out with great accuracy the particular needs of the schools and how they intend to spend that additional resource.

Therefore, in response to the general question of whether we have taken account of issues such as the pay review for teachers, the answer is "yes". However, we do not know the precise figure. We are genuinely in a chicken-and-egg situation. If we wait for teachers' settlements to come through, the announcement that we make about the overall position will delay schools' capacity to plan and budget. If we do what we are doing here and make an intelligent and, we hope, reasonably precise estimate of the additional costs, we can then make a Statement and provide schools and local authorities with such information that will be to their advantage as regards budgeting. I believe that that point has been recognised on both sides of the House.

The same issue relates to the question of the workload agreement. That has been taken into account in the figures which have been prepared, and I believe it will be seen that the Government have been able to make reasonable estimates of the impact upon schools. We all recognise that schools vary enormously, but we clearly have in place a. model of the costs which schools should incur. As a general model, we believe that about 80 per cent of schools' expenditure should go on salaries for teachers and 20 per cent on other costs. Where schools depart massively from that position, that causes difficulties. Indeed, some schools have departed from it. We shall ask that they return more closely to that model with the advice that we hope to provide through the assistance we are giving to schools on budgeting.

4 p.m.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, the Minister was rather sad about the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, gave a grudging—I think that was his word—welcome to the Statement. However, I have to say that it was the most convoluted 20-minute Statement in financial terms that I have ever heard. I pay a compliment to the Minister. After he finished repeating the Statement I received a copy and quickly read it. He made it sound less convoluted than it reads. It is an appalling Statement. I suggest that perhaps the department should ask the Plain English Campaign to cast its eye over Statements such as this before they are delivered.

All the percentage figures are completely in the ether. I have three questions. First, does the Statement result in an increase in percentage of GDP spent on education in this country? I am bowling this at the Minister, but perhaps he could write to me stating how much other European Union countries spend on education as a percentage of GDP. Secondly, how much money will go on bureaucracy in attempting to get teachers and everyone else involved in the education system to understand the figures and to come up with managing them? Thirdly, how much will KPMG be paid for this consultancy? Will it be running around LEAs and training them in how to deal with financially convoluted processes? As a supplementary question, was the appointment of KPMG open to competition? Was this consultancy advertised or was it just plucked out of the air and given to KPMG as a nice juicy job?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, the noble Baroness is well versed in the nature of the British economy. She will recognise that against the background of growth which our flourishing economy provides, if the Government increase expenditure on schools by 4 per cent and have a target of 5 per cent for local authorities, generally the percentage expended on education in this country will rise over the lifetime of this period of our administration, as it did in the latter years before the last general election. So we are fulfilling our promise. That is why I chide noble Baronesses opposite who support positions which advocate tax cutting. They will recognise that there is a price to be paid in terms of the limits we can offer elsewhere. That is why we are determined to fulfil our priorities on education and health.

As to the extent to which by the end of this administration, after eight years of a Labour Government, we shall have moved up the league table as regards percentage of GDP spent on education, I merely indicate that I cannot give that precise figure. I do not know the performance elsewhere with great accuracy. However, we are moving up that league table. This is a commitment by the Government which is being fulfilled in this Statement. It is being fulfilled also in relation to the second question.

I apologise if, in the words of the noble Baroness, the Statement is convoluted. However, part of the difficulty is that we are seeking to guarantee that the money arrives in schools rather than, as she says, being wrapped up in bureaucracy. That involves very careful and selective targeting. Hence the difficulty.

As regards the noble Baroness's final point, I do not know how much KPMG was paid. I do know that this was put out to tender. It is helpful for schools to have assistance on effective budgeting.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and welcome unambiguously the prospect of additional cash for schools. Could any headteacher who is intelligent, who has read the Statement and who has passed the examination in it draw any deductions now about the state of his budget next year in specific percentage terms?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, no doubt some headteachers will find that more difficult than others. Some run much more complex schools than others. However, the position is clear. We intend to increase the resources available to schools. We were hopeful that last year's position would be one in which all schools would receive benefit from the allocations made. Because of difficulties over certain aspects of finances and relationships with local authorities, it was not always the case that every school benefited in the way in which we would have liked. Now we are guaranteeing a basic 4 per cent floor for all schools. We are ensuring that schools which are in particular difficulty, are disadvantaged and running deficits receive additional help. Headteachers will certainly recognise that.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, clearly, the Statement has been produced because there have been real problems in schools and local authorities. Because of such problems all the formulas that Members find difficult to understand are contained here. It seems to me that what should be done at decent speed is for between 12 and 20 schools to have their budgets for the current year considered, for this document to be applied to them and for it to be shown how it will affect different schools. I refer to large schools, small schools, primary and secondary schools within different local authorities. People would then have an understanding of how the formula would work in relation to their school. Can the Minister achieve that?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, there is local flexibility for school governors and local authorities. Elements of flexibility need to be taken account which are dependent on local decisions, as is entirely proper in our education system. Certainly, we could draw up an example using two or three schools to indicate what this will mean to them. We cannot do that for every school in the country; it is not our role to do so. This is contingent on decisions which they take. As I tried to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the Statement contains good news for headteachers because the issues of underfunding are being addressed and resources are being made available.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, I suggest that this is needed so that people know that it is good news.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was extremely apposite. We shall not know whether this is a good Statement until we hear the reaction of headteachers and local authorities. As someone who was chairman of a local education committee, albeit a long time ago, I know that school funding is complicated. It is based on extremely complicated formulae. For the first time in my recollection the Secretary of State has given a full account of what he has done. He has had to do that because of the muddle that schools have been in. Teachers need to know quickly what their situation will be.

It seems to me that one statement made by the Minister regarding the fall in numbers was hugely significant. He said that rolls had dropped by 50,000 this year and will drop by another 50,000 next year. I expect that that will be cumulative. That drop in numbers will move year by year into secondary schools and there will be huge problems in funding. If we remember, the last time that school rolls fell, which was in the 1970s, the cost of the school remained the same but the number of pupils and the funding per pupil fell. So one hopes that anticipation of those problems is built into this Statement. I do not imagine that the noble Lord will be able to tell us whether that is so, but it would be absolutely essential.

I have one question for the noble Lord. Of the 4 per cent per pupil added on top of what had already been promised and the 5.5 per cent—I believe that that figure was mentioned—for other costs in the school, how much will be used up in salaries?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, on the last point, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, as the noble Baroness will recognise, inevitably a substantial part of any school's budget—80 per cent for an average school—is used for staff costs. That is a significant element in its budget. We have taken account in the 4 per cent figure of expected additional staffing costs which will flow from the eventual settlement made by the teachers' salary review board.

On the more general issue of the very diffuse and difficult world of effective planning ahead, of the few figures given probably one is of school numbers. They fluctuate, but nevertheless we were able to anticipate that there would be 50,000 fewer pupils in junior schools. As the noble Baroness indicated, that reduction will flow through the system in due course.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords, I acknowledge that the Government's Statement is presented as an increase in expenditure to enable education authorities to balance their budgets more effectively and equitably. Is there any hope in the mind of the Government that nationwide there may be particular enhanced educational opportunities flowing from this expenditure? Perhaps I may make a specific inquiry, on which I would be happy to hear subsequently. Does the Minister anticipate that as a result of this there will be any increase in the availability of musical instruments being taught in schools?

Lord Davies of Oldham

Well, my Lords, the noble Lord has identified an area which has caused great concern in the past. We know about the enormous drop in the teaching of music in schools with the reduction of expenditure, both on full-time teachers employed in schools and peripatetic music teachers. I can say only that we are seeking to ensure that the education budgeting by schools and by local authorities will have far fewer problems than last year. We have increased the amount of money available. The decisions on whether that then is. reflected in particular areas, such as the one on which the noble Lord expressed interest, is of course a matter for local decision. But I agree with him: it is an area for concern. I think that that view is shared widely in the community and in local authorities—and schools respond to community needs.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what clearly is a considerable sum of extra money. It is difficult to understand how it has all been organised and cut for the different branches of the education system. The Minister has already indicated that special educational needs will have special attention. But what proportion of the extra money will be allocated to educationally deprived areas where—I would certainly argue—the cost of educating children is probably double the cost in other better equipped areas?

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords., the noble Baroness speaks with considerable authority about these issues. I agree that they are important priorities. The Statement refers to the ethnic minority grant. It recognises that schools with a large number of ethnic minority students for whom often English is not the first language are an important priority. They need extra resources. That is why we are seeking to ensure that such resources are targeted. I very much agree with her.

The issue with regard to special educational needs is very much a decision for each local education authority. I can only attest to the fact that some of our difficulties last year were a reflection of some local authorities showing such a significant commitment to this group as to incur levels of investment and expenditure which is difficult to match year on year. We are ensuring that we do not see that figure drop, but we cannot expect enhancement at quite the level that occurred in some areas last year.