Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 12 May 1999
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Education (Education Standards Etc. Grants) (England) Regulations 1999
4.30 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): I beg to move,
``That the Committee has considered the Education (Education Standards Etc. Grants) (England) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999, No. 606).
I begin by sending Committee members the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who normally leads for the Opposition in the many Committees that consider education matters. She is unavoidably engaged elsewhere this afternoon, and is very sorry not to be here.
I gather that there is a general consensus among Committee members that brevity is of the essence this afternoon, [Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] I am glad that I have the agreement of Labour Members. My speech will not take long because I have only a few, albeit important, points to make, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will answer my questions equally briefly.
In relation to the regulations, Opposition Members are concerned about the fact that a considerable sum is held by the Government in the Department for Education and Employment and distributed to local education authorities and schools. The Government use their own priorities rather than those of LEAs and schools. They may use that system intentionally—they are entitled to take a view and to carry out their policies accordingly. However, that system is inconsistent with the constant calls that we hear for devolution and for giving power to the people or institutions at, as it were, the grass roots rather than the centre. If decentralisation is the aim, why are the Government continuing, in these regulations and in others, to place power and finance at the centre?
When local management of schools was first introduced some years ago, financial autonomy was devolved to head teachers and away from LEAs. I well remember that the considerable sums that were saved could be spent directly on education at the chalk face rather than on administration. All those who were involved, especially those at the local level, regarded that policy as being correct.
Schedule 8(1) give carte blance to the Secretary of State to ``determine further conditions'' in relation to future payments. Given that the regulations already contain many conditions, why was that power felt to be necessary? The Secretary of State can use that power if he wishes. Will an appropriate amendment be considered in the House or in a Standing Committee? Will the power involve democratic input in any way, or will decisions be rubber-stamped by the Department?
The regulations list 68 categories of expenditure—a large number—which will be covered by standards fund bids and which will be decided by the Government, who will be able to establish their own priorities. Is there any mechanism by which the Government can listen to local authorities or head teachers when deciding what further priorities there should be?
A further concern is the bidding process and the amount of money that is being distributed from the centre through that process. The standards fund money must all be bid for by local educaiton authorities, if my reading of clause 6(1) is correct. I am sure that the Minister will tell me if that is not so. Such a bidding process is time consuming and expensive. It is in the best interests of the children to whom we are trying to give the best possible education to spend so much time, effort and money on the bidding process, rather than giving autonomy of expenditure to the school itself?
I know, from speaking to head teachers in my constituency, how much they are able to achieve when given the ability to respond to changing circumstances and to deal with crises and problems that arise in their own school and their own area. When they have the financial ability to deal with those problems, they can do it quickly and well. However, if they have to go through the whole bidding process, it will take financial resources away from the chalk face, and also take up a great deal of time. Sometimes, problems arise that have to be dealt with quickly—particularly in special needs cases. It makes sense to give autonomy to the head teacher to deal with such problems.
A written answer in Hansard on 22 April 1999 at column 682 makes it clear that of a total 8,714 bids—not just standards fund bids, but bids generally—received by the Department for Education and Employment since November 1998, only 2,998 have been successful. I am not complaining about the ratio of bids to success—that is probably fair enough. However, I question the amount of time, money and other resources that went into those unsuccessful bids, of which there were more than 5,000. Those schools or LEAs thought that they had a reasonable case for bidding for the extra resources that they needed. Not only were they unsuccessful in obtaining them, but they wasted time, money and effort in the process.
I have two other matters to address concerning some anomalies in the regulations. It appears that under schedule 1(2)(a), if compared with schedule 1(2)(b), there will be a 100 per cent. grant for training someone to become a head teacher, but only a 50 per cent. grant for training a head teacher in post. I am sure that there is a reason why the regulations have been drafted in this way—we should like to know what it is. It seems rather strange. There is also an anomaly in schedule 1(3)(a), when compared with schedule 1(3)(b), in that there is once again a 100 per cent. grant for an advanced skills teacher in a specialist school, whereas an AST in a non-specialist school attracts only a 50 per cent. grant. It has recently been reported that schools in the north-east are finding it difficult to afford ASTs at all. If ASTs are a key plank in the Government's policy, why are there not 100 per cent. grants for them throughout?
I promised to be brief. I have stated our general objection to the regulations, which is that they represent more money down the drain into bureaucracy, instead of going directly to where it helps teachers and their pupils. It is a pity that the Government have decided to create yet more piles of paper. I worry about the number of regulations that pass over the desks of head teachers and other teachers, who should be spending their time getting on with teaching, instead of dealing with more and more bureaucracy.
4.41 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I come here a disappointed man, having visited the Pre-School Learning Alliance's exhibition of pictures by Members of Parliament only to find that I have not been selected for any of the awards. I now know what it feels like to fail an Ofsted inspection. However, as no other member of the Committee has won an award either, I am in illustrious company.
It is wonderful to witness the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) continue the regeneration of the Tory party by learning from its mistakes. I worked for 18 years as a head teacher under Conservative Governments and experienced nothing but attacks on local education authorities and schools. Now the Conservative party supports LEAs and wants them to be given much more support. I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) will support me in those comments.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): Not necessarily.
Mr. Willis: I also intend to be brief. We have several concerns, but the principal one follows from work in Committee yesterday: the regulations are yet another example of enormous central control of resources. Such a measure has never been proposed to the House of Commons. It was not a Labour manifesto pledge to set up a standards fund to control and distribute money centrally. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) shakes his head, because he agrees. Never during the past two years, despite two major Acts and umpteen discussions of Government policy on education, education, education, has the House had the opportunity to discuss the fundamental issue of the standards fund.
That is the basis of our opposition to the regulations and the Government's actions. If they had the support of the House; if we had had an opportunity to debate the central policy of a standards fund, we would come to the regulations in a different frame of mind. Central Government will have a tool with which to control every aspect of spending in an individual school anywhere in England or Wales. Fortunately, the Scots have been able to escape, and provided that they get a superb coalition government including the Liberal Democrats, they can decide policy for themselves.
I counted 72 categories in schedule 1; but let us not split hairs, if there are 68, I will settle for that. In the past two years, 72 categories of bidding have been introduced. The hon. Member for Epping Forest is absolutely right: where will we be after four years? Every aspect of expenditure in schools could be controlled by the standards fund, if the Government choose. Why not be honest and go the whole hog? Why do not the Government say that they will control all schools and their expenditure centrally? Then we can have an honest debate on the issue.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned the bidding process. There is not one LEA that does not have constant complaints from officers and head teachers about the amount of time spent on the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who sadly is not here today, has had a crusade on the matter. The Minister has been singularly unable to respond to why it is necessary to have this level of bidding. It is all right for the winners—they go away happy because they have obtained the money that they need for their project. That is superb, except when it comes to auditing it. Auditing where the money goes, with the LEA auditing it via the schools, is yet another bureaucratic burden on the schools. It increases the level of bureaucracy and control under the Government.
What about the losers? What support will they get for the enormous waste of resources? Has the Minister's Department calculated what it cost in the last financial year to put together those bids? What is the waste of money for all those schools and LEAs which have not spent the money? Yesterday, we had a debate on being open and accountable regarding expenditure. There should be a column in the LEAs' budget profile to show how much is spent on bidding.
The Government's announcement on music was a late addition to the list. Despite the huge and savage cuts imposed by the previous Government, my local authority, North Yorkshire, maintained a first-class music education service for all our youngsters. It was not only for the wealthy and those who could afford it; it was a comprehensive music service, and I complimented North Yorkshire on it. It was spending about £650,000 on the service. It had already set its budget when the Government decided to give it 100 per cent. relief. North Yorkshire was delighted. I compliment the Minister on recognising the strength of its music education and giving it 100 per cent. relief. But how can a local authority programme its budgeting process if decisions are being made so late? Can we have a system whereby the standards fund is allocated at the same time as local authorities receive their grant settlement, so that we know matters are clear and open, if the Government are to continue down that road?
4.48 pm
| 
