Pupils: Disadvantaged
Debate between Lord Blunkett and David Laws(10 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunkett
To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 14 October 2013, Official Report, columns 602-3W, on free school meals, what plans his Department has to facilitate the availability of pupil premium to Key Stage 1 children and the schools they attend in subsequent years.
[Official Report, 25 October 2013, Vol. 569, c. 303-4W.]
Letter of correction from David Laws:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) on 25 October 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Laws
We are providing significant funding through the pupil premium to help raise the attainment of disadvantaged children and are committed to its continuation. As stated in my previous answer, our methodology for allocating the pupil premium in 2014-15 will not be affected by our policy to provide free school meals for all infant pupils.
We are considering the possible implications for how the pupil premium is allocated longer term. A number of local authorities such as Southwark, Newham, Durham and Islington are currently offering free school meals to their primary pupils whilst still submitting data used in the allocation of pupil premium. We will consider their experience and set out our proposals in due course.
The correct answer should have been:
Government Spending Cuts
Debate between Lord Blunkett and David Laws(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laws
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. First, he is right that we will seek, wherever we can, Mr Speaker, to make sure that these statements are made in the House, and we welcome the scrutiny from Members on both sides.
Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of cutting quangos. No serious economist believes that the actions we have taken this week will jeopardise the recovery. If the shadow Chancellor were being straightforward with us, he would acknowledge that the previous Government were already taking action to seek to deal with the deficit by tightening policy—for example by putting the rate of value added tax back up to 17.5%.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
By definition, ring-fenced and specific funding to local government, whether from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education or others, is directed specifically at the most disadvantaged and deprived. Will the Chief Secretary tell us precisely what he believes he is doing in cutting more than £1 billion of that specific funding and by unring-fencing the rest, allowing those specific priorities to be eroded?
Mr Laws
The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong if he thinks local government is incapable of making efficiency savings. All the people I know in local government believe that significant efficiency savings can be made. He does not allow for the significant change that the Government have announced, which will mean that by ending ring-fencing, there is more freedom for local government to decide where those cuts fall, and to make sure that they fall in the areas that are not priorities. I should have thought that as a former Education Secretary, he could have brought himself to congratulate the Government on the way that they have managed to ring-fence the schools budget and the Sure Start budget.