Funding and Schools Reform

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes the point. We should aspire to the best possible environment for every single child in this country. We should start where aspiration, expectation and ambition are lowest and transform what those children have. I remember a child in my constituency going into a new school and saying, “It’s too good for us.” That is what we need to challenge and break down. The depressing comments from the Conservatives show that they have no understanding of the message that the environment sends to a young person.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Aintree Davenhill primary school in my constituency is near where my right hon. Friend used to live. Phase 1 of the rebuild is nearly completed, but phase 2 is yet to be approved by the Government. If phase 2 does not go ahead, the children there will be left to learn in a corrugated iron hut, which is freezing at this time of year and boiling hot in the summer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not the kind of facility in which our children should expect to learn?

[Andy Burnham]

It most certainly is not, although the Conservatives do not seem to mind, as far as I can tell. Such a facility is too good for our children, as far as I can make out.

Schools all over the country are in chaos because the Department promised a capital review to clear up the problems and give clarity to schools. Instead, schools all over the country are in limbo, waiting to hear. I hope they will hear some clarity from the right hon. Gentleman today. It is clear that he has made a mess of the capital budget, but I hope he will acknowledge today the anxiety in schools right now about revenue budgets for next year.

“Schools protected” was the headline that schools wanted on spending review day, but here is the second charge that I lay at the door of the Secretary of State: has he not raised expectations that he now cannot fulfil? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, when rising pupil numbers are taken into account, the “Schools protected” headline turns into a 2.25% real-terms per pupil cut. Further changes to funding may mean it is far worse for some schools. Specialist schools fear losing the extra money that comes with their status. I hope that today the Secretary of State may provide them with some clarity on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

It is £2.5 billion on top of the cash settlement that schools have been given. It is a real-terms increase in schools spending and £3.6 billion overall. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) is probably off to celebrate the good news. The truth is that this spending could not have been delivered by the Opposition, because they were not committed to taking the tough decisions that we have taken in order to invest in schools spending.

[Bill Esterson]

Is the truth not that the Institute for Fiscal Studies figures clearly show that because of increasing pupil numbers this will amount to a 2.25% cut in real terms—not an increase, but a cut—and that the most disadvantaged areas will lose out as a result of the proposals that the Secretary of State wants to introduce on the pupil premium?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely not. Schools spending will rise in real terms over the lifetime of the coalition Government. That was not a promise that the Opposition were able to give; they could promise only to increase spending over two years. As I say, we are also extending 15 hours of pre-school learning to all disadvantaged two-year-olds—the Government of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were not able to deliver that. We are also giving £150 million to help disadvantaged students from poorer backgrounds to make it to university.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Select Committee, and his comments about the importance of investment in improving attainment and standards, but it is also important to recognise that the previous Labour Government not only put in the money but achieved results. I did not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what happened. GCSE results and others improved, and there was a big increase in further and higher education results.

My family was fortunate enough to have access to Sure Start when a centre opened where we lived. It benefited not just my family but the other families who used it. They told me in great detail the difference that it had made to the younger children, when compared with older children who had not had such an opportunity in a Sure Start centre or in any other pioneering family centres that preceded it. The difference can be seen many years later in the attitudes, behaviour and achievement of the younger children, who are now teenagers, compared with their slightly older brothers and sisters, who had no such support in the early years. I know from that evidence the importance of Sure State to children who live in deprived areas, which explains people’s concerns about Sure Start’s future.

The Secretary of State did not answer the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made about concerns regarding the future of Sure Start, but perhaps he will do so in his closing remarks. I know from my experience and that of many others who have benefited that, of all the previous Government’s achievements, the improvement in the quality of lives and the outcomes for children and families, just through Sure Start, is beyond measure.

The education maintenance allowance benefited many young people who stayed in education. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats suggested in their manifesto that they understood that. They promised to support the EMA, as did the Conservatives, because they saw the improvement in staying-on rates, and the predicted decline by some organisations in staying on of 10% or 12% is worrying. In Sefton, 80% of young people receive EMA, and from talking to them I know the number who say that they will not bother going to college any more without the £30 or £50 a week is frightening. I hope the Government reconsider the limits they are placing on support to young people.

I asked the Secretary of State about the pupil premium, about which the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Library make similar points. The rise in the numbers of children going to school means that, despite the pupil premium and the increase in the overall money for schools, the real-terms effect is a cut for 87% of secondary schools and 60% of primary schools. That cannot be what the Secretary of State intended, and the impact on areas of deprivation, to which the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) referred, is worrying.

I accept that we need to look after people in pockets of deprivation in the more affluent areas, but it is important to ensure that people in the larger areas of deprivation, such as those in Merseyside and our other large cities, are protected. Unless we do that, the outcomes and many other aspects of life for children who most need our help will decline significantly.

[Graham Evans]

My constituency is on the periphery of Merseyside and Cheshire. I want to address the needs of those in pockets of social deprivation, which you have just brushed aside. Those numbers add up. I appreciate, and have a lot of sympathy with, the issues that you have in Merseyside—indeed, I support your case—but you cannot ignore those numbers because when you put them into the comprehensive—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, the hon. Gentleman should not, by now, be using the word “you”. Secondly, interventions should be brief, not mini-speeches. Other Members are waiting to contribute to the debate.

[Bill Esterson]

I shall close by addressing that point. I did say it is important that we look after those in pockets of deprivation, but it is crucial issue that we do not do so at the expense of much larger areas where, historically, we have had to invest money to support people because of the extreme deprivation.