Schools: National Funding Formula

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for all he has done in his local community and, of course, with the f40 group to help to improve the formula and to make sure that what was, as he says, an incredibly complex piece of work ended up in the right place. We have today a strong national funding formula that can work for some very different schools and communities throughout the country, and I am proud that we are finally able to launch it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

So often in this place one campaigns about historical underfunding but nothing happens, because it is all too difficult, so I have hung around this afternoon to thank my right hon. Friend. We have campaigned for rural schools for years, and she is now giving them 3.9% more. In Lincolnshire, we have many very small schools with under 100 pupils, and even some that traditionally have fewer than 50. My right hon. Friend has announced another 5% for schools in the most remote locations. Will that help counties such as Lincolnshire that have a sparse but evenly distributed population?

[Justine Greening]

The new formula will help those sorts of schools. We made a minor but important adjustment in the formula to make sure that it works for the very, very smallest schools, which otherwise might not have gained in the way we wanted them to. I hope that that is good news for my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister was just attacked for removing the cap on faith schools. The implication was that they do not promote cohesion. Is it not a nonsense to suggest that our wonderful Anglican and Catholic schools are not broad-based and do not promote cohesion? Above all, they have good academic standards. The unacknowledged point of the cap was to stop 100% Muslim schools. It was simply not effective and was therefore useless, so the Minister was right to do away with it.

[Justine Greening]

I agree with my hon. Friend—he is right. We should reflect on the fact that about a third of our schools are faith schools. Many of our children will have gone to those schools. They have an ethos and a level of academic attainment that we are trying to achieve more broadly across the whole system.

Schools that work for Everyone

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

As the right hon. Gentleman sets out, the sense that somehow grammars are the only schools delivering good and outstanding education for our children is wrong. That is why we should not be shy of the fact that we ought to open up the system to allow grammars to play a stronger role; we can do that precisely because it is not a binary system any more with all the other schools in that system performing weakly. As he says, however, we need to recognise that it is not just opening up new grammars that is going to enable more children to get more good school places; that is part of the answer, but the other part of the answer is to enable schools to learn from one another and to collaborate more, and of course, as I have set out, to see other actors in the educational establishment, like universities and independent schools, playing a bigger role in the future.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Are not choice and diversity the key? We have been sitting here discussing this matter for over an hour, yet no one on either side of the House has suggested that a single existing grammar school should be abolished. Is it not perverse to prevent successful grammar schools, such as Caistor Grammar School or Queen Elizabeth’s High School in my constituency, from expanding to take in more disadvantaged kids? We should allow them to take in such kids from disadvantaged areas in Lincoln, Grimsby or Scunthorpe. In regard to the cap on faith schools, why did we have it in the first place? It was perverse and bizarre, and it failed in its objective. Why should Catholic parents be prevented from sending their children to the faith school of their choice?

[Justine Greening]

This is about opening up choice for parents, including those who want grammar school places but do not have them, and about enabling more faith schools to open. About a third of the schools in our system are faith schools and many of them have played an outstanding role in educating our children. We should enable them to do more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure value for money in spending on UK-funded projects abroad.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

Driving the best value for money is a top priority for the Government. Robust processes are in place for the 86% of aid spent by my Department. Business cases are required for all projects, and their performance is also appraised and monitored.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sure the Secretary of State will want to give an explanation for how she will ensure value for money in her Department. May I give her one project for which I could ensure value for money, where it takes four to five weeks to see a doctor, the roads are filled with potholes and the police are in crisis? I refer, of course, to that tribe inhabiting the frozen plains of the north, the Lincolnshire yellowbellies.

[Justine Greening]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point very eloquently. I can assure him that my Department is probably the most scrutinised of any in government. We have the Select Committee on International Development, the aid watchdog and the Public Accounts Committee. I can assure him we are rising to that challenge.

Syria (Humanitarian Response)

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I very much appreciate the way in which the shadow Secretary of State approached his response. There was a huge effort across the international community to make sure that the donor conference was a success, and the UK certainly did as much as it could to try to make sure that that was the case. The hon. Gentleman asked how the funds would be spent. The £50 million that we donated at the conference will sit alongside the UN co-ordinated response to the humanitarian crisis. Of the requested $1.5 billion, about $1 billion goes to helping refugees outside Syria, and about half a billion dollars of that is planned to help people still suffering inside Syria. In relation to how we can make sure that we reach the many parts of Syria that are difficult to get to, we have to take the opportunities, and we work through humanitarian partners all the time. They are neutral and impartial but nevertheless have the ability to go into parts of Syria that are often contested. Some of them are Government-controlled, some opposition-controlled, but others are still contested, and as I said in my statement, they are dangerous places. We therefore support those humanitarian agencies. When I talk to the people who head up the World Food Programme, for example, they are clear that they have to take opportunities when they arise. They often find a contact whom they believe is trustworthy, and through them can gain access to a new area, and they will take that opportunity. They have to be prepared to act very quickly and flexibly. We support them in doing so, and the main concern for them in recent weeks has been funding, which is why the donor conference was so important.

As for what the UK has done directly in Syria, we have provided medical support. We have trained—I think I am right in saying—250 health workers, and we have helped open about 130 mobile medical units that provide care. We are also providing food and shelter wherever we can. The UN Security Council has called for the Syrian authorities to provide full, immediate and unimpeded access to all areas of Syria so that humanitarian support can get through. That is absolutely vital, and we urge the opposition forces to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian actors. It is critical, if we are to be able to use that $1.5 billion effectively, that we make sure that we have the routes to get through to the people who need our support.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic response, and he is quite right to flag up the fact that this humanitarian crisis is perhaps different from many others with which the Department deals. Often we are dealing with a natural disaster, and people act to tackle the aftermath. This is a humanitarian crisis that has unfolded over many months and seems likely to continue to unfold over a prolonged period. It may be that we have not seen the worst of the humanitarian crisis in relation to Syria, which is why it is vital that Assad goes, and goes now, so that the work to rebuild Syria can begin.

We are talking with the UNHCR and other humanitarian bodies about how we can make sure that we are set up to deal with a crisis that could become significantly worse in the coming months if the violence continues. As I said in my statement, there are 2 million internally displaced people within Syria. Many of the refugees with whom I spoke a couple of weekends ago had tried their best to stay in Syria. They had moved from Homs to a different place, to a different place again and so on, but were finally left with no choice but to leave Syria. If just a fraction of the 2 million internally displaced people end up having to leave Syria and become refugees, we will see a dramatic increase in the humanitarian problems outside Syria. That is why the donor conference was so important.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at how we can make sure that we are positioned to take care of those people. For neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey, the strain and the pressure put on them are immense. We should always bear that in mind when we are looking at the support that we provide. As he rightly pointed out, most of the refugees in Jordan, for example, are not in camps but in host communities. When I was in Jordan I was told that the local education system has had to absorb 22,000 children who arrived with refugee families. There are significant challenges ahead, which is why we need to continue to keep international attention focused on a very grave humanitarian situation.

The hon. Gentleman asked about women and girls, and he is right to do so. We have been particularly concerned to make sure that we have supported children. One in five of the people turning up at the Za’atari refugee camp that I visited was a child aged four or under. Nearly 60% of the refugees who have turned up at that camp were 30 or under. Alongside others, we are providing clinical care and counselling to women and we are helping to provide education to children. We are also providing specific support to about 1,800 women we believe are at risk of possibly being coerced into marriage. We are therefore providing support to them to ensure, wherever possible, that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is raising on the international stage the broader issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict, and it will be one of the subjects that we try to push internationally at the G8.

The hon. Gentleman asked about coalition talks. There is a general recognition in the international community that the solution in Syria is a political one, which will involve talks, including between the coalition and the Government. It is clear from talking with the coalition that any future transitional Government must be one that has no Assad as part of it. I therefore come back to my earlier comments that for things to move forward, it is time for Assad to go so that the rebuilding of Syria can start.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Israeli air strikes. It is too early to speculate on exactly what happened, but we can see that ensuring stability in that region is critical. It is why the donor conference was so important, so that in the short term we have the funding in place at least to deal with the humanitarian crisis. More broadly, we need stability in the Syrian region. That will mean a political solution to the challenges and to the civil war that is under way in Syria.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Once before, in another crisis, we made the terrible mistake of arming rebels—in Afghanistan. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute commitment that in no way, either directly or indirectly or through surrogates, are we giving any aid to Syria that can be used for any offensive purposes, for military purposes or to take life?

[Justine Greening]

I can certainly be clear with my hon. Friend that DFID support is non-lethal: underpinning absolutely everything we do is the fact that it has to be humanitarian-focused. He is therefore right that we are not in the business of arming to perpetuate this violence. We want to see an end to it, and that will require a political solution.

Cost of Living

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

We all accept that the Government can usefully spend on assets. I do not deny that. There is nothing wrong with Government spending, but there is something wrong with wasteful Government spending. In a recent global competitiveness report, Britain was ranked an unbelievable 72nd in the world behind Ethiopia and Tajikistan on the wastefulness of Government spending. That simply is not good enough. If a private company was ranked so low in the pecking order, questions would be asked about the people serving on the board, would they not? We have to try harder and do better. Government money does not come from nowhere. Every pound wasted by Whitehall is a pound that could have been invested by a British company or spent by a British family.

Before I conclude, let me speak about a few other issues, including aspects of the Queen’s Speech which I welcome. The right hon. Member for Croydon North talked about family life. One reason I have supported a marriage tax allowance, which sadly was once again not in the Queen’s Speech, is that it would address precisely the point he was making—the tax disincentive for a parent, usually a woman, to stay at home to look after her children. Nobody pretends that a tax gets people married or keeps people married. It simply deals with the totally unjust situation that a married person, normally a woman, who stays at home and looks after her young children is uniquely attacked by the tax and benefit system. That cannot be right.

I am glad that the high-speed rail line was not in the Queen’s Speech. I will do a deal with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who will sum up the debate. I will support her high-speed line, which will admittedly cut the journey time between London and Birmingham—no doubt that is all very good and means spending the assets that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke about—if she will support the building of a third runway at Heathrow airport.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Leigh]

She shakes her head, sadly, but one never knows: we might win this argument in the end. This is about ensuring that the UK is globally competitive. I have talked a lot about waste in Government spending and about spending less. We have to be globally competitive, and Heathrow has to remain globally competitive. The City of London and Heathrow are the two things that have really propelled the British economy forward over the past 15 years. The situation seems madness to me. If Heathrow is prepared to expand with virtually no cost to the Government, we should do it. I know there is a long way to go on that argument, but we will keep trying. By all means, if people want to build a new high-speed line between Gatwick and Heathrow, I am all in favour of that, but I want to create the biggest and best international airport in the world, because I want Britain to be a successful transport hub. I cannot believe that on, frankly, spurious green grounds—I do not think the argument has been particularly well made—we are denying ourselves the opportunity of creating the best airport transport hub in the world.

If I may change the subject before I conclude, I am sorry that we are not going further on education. The Secretary of State for Education gave a marvellous speech last week. He rightly bemoaned an issue about which there is very little conversation in the House. Why is it that half the places in our best universities are taken by private school pupils, despite the fact that only 5% or 10% of people go to private school? That is scandalous. What is the left doing about it? Why do we have a situation in which people are able to afford such an extraordinary advantage for their children by sending them to a private school?

I believe we should go further with the education reforms. We have created academies, which are a great success, and the Secretary of State for Education is one of the most successful members of the Government, but as well as creating academies we could learn from the success of the independent sector and create independent academies. I am not saying that the existing academies that perform well should be allowed to become independent, but what if the bottom half—those that are not performing very well—were allowed to become independent academies? What about free schools not being allowed to charge but in all other respects having the total freedom of independent schools? Let us set them up in the poorest areas and see if we can remove what is almost an appalling bias which prevents people from rising up from the ghetto and our poorest areas. Let us try to be innovative in education.

I was talking to a Labour councillor last week. Funnily enough he was from the Speaker’s constituency; I was amazed that there were any Labour councillors left in the Speaker’s constituency, but apparently there are. That councillor, who is a very good man, not a market-driven, Thatcherite, right-winger like myself, said, “This situation can’t carry on; perhaps we should actually pay some of our poorest people to go to private school.” As a way round, we could say that any child who has never been to a private school—so there would be no deadweight cost—or any pupil coming from one of the 100 poorest postcodes should be subsidised by the state to go to private school. Why should we not at least try that? Why should we, whether we are on the right or the left, be prepared to accept the great elephant in the room: that a smaller proportion of people on free school meals across the entire country get into Oxford or Cambridge than those from schools attended by the leader of the Conservative party and the deputy leader of the Labour party? Why do those two private schools send more people every year to Oxford and Cambridge than come from the entire stock of pupils in the country on free school meals? Why are we not prepared to be radical and try to think of new solutions to help those at the bottom of the heap to rise to the top and get the same opportunities enjoyed by people going to private schools?

Those are the kind of radical ideas that the coalition could propel. We have a coalition and we have to live with that. There is no point bemoaning its existence, because we did not get enough votes to get a purely Conservative Government. There are many areas where our two parties can work together. One of the best things the Liberal party has done in recent years is to make the economic the ideological case for taking people out of tax. That is the best way to help the low-paid—ordinary people—and it is one of the very best things the Government are doing.

We heard an excellent speech from the Secretary of State. He talked about freeing up the electricity sector. That is something we can work on with our Liberal friends—radical ideas to free up the economy.

This morning, there was a press conference about reforming the Public Order Act 1986 and getting rid of section 5, which outlaws insulting language. Again, Liberals, Labour people and Conservatives can unite. Section 5 has a chilling effect on debate out there. We want more vigorous debate not just out there, but in here. We want fresh and radical ideas to try to free people from the overwhelming incubus of wasteful Government spending and regulation that holds down families and small businesses. I firmly believe that this Government—a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals—is moving in that direction.

Rail Reform

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. One problem in the past has been that, every time a Government have wanted to drive efficiencies in the rail sector, they have rearranged the whole railway structure, whereas what we need to do is get the pieces that are there working better.



The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the west coast main line, which is a good example of how things can go wrong. It was pencilled in to cost £2 billion; it ended up costing £9 billion and took significantly longer than was anticipated. It is a good example of why we cannot go on like that and why we have to work with the industry and challenge it to work better itself.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Exactly. Does the Secretary of State agree that politicians are useless in any industry at picking winners, and will she reassure us that this Conservative Government remain committed to a privatised industry in which competition and a market-driven approach have driven record growth in numbers, and that there will be no return to the bad old days of British Rail with stultifying ministerial control?

[Justine Greening]

The Labour party may not be prepared to rule out nationalisation, but I am.

Rail Fares

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do not think there is any way in which the hon. Gentleman can dress up the outcome of the McNulty report, which set out very clearly just how expensive our railway industry is compared with those in mainland Europe.

I understand that rail fares are a large part of household expenditure for many people, particularly commuters, who often travel significant distances to go to work and earn a living. Of course, the taxpayer subsidises the rail industry alongside rail fares, and thanks to difficult decisions that the Government took in the emergency Budget and the spending review, the Chancellor was able to announce in the autumn statement that we would fund a reduction in the planned increases in fares so that regulated fares would increase by RPI plus 1%. That reduction is helping millions of people who use our trains.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend say something about rural fares? The anytime weekly return to London from Market Rasen, which is not in the frozen north, is £150, and the average weekly wage in Market Rasen is £561. That means that people are paying 26% of their weekly salary just to get to London and back. That is not acceptable, and something must be done. We must have less emphasis on the high-speed rail link and all those wonderful projects and more emphasis on helping ordinary people in rural areas.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to set out the very difficult balance that we have to strike. On one hand we have to ensure that we keep rail fares affordable, and I am determined to do what I can to do that in spite of the fiscal straitjacket within which the Government are having to operate. On the other hand, we have to ensure that we can balance investment in the short term. I am sure that many Members were delighted to see Bombardier agree the contract with Southern for more carriages, and we are putting unprecedented investment into the existing railway lines. We have to strike a balance between working out who pays for the hard work that is going on today and ensuring that we have a railway network that is fit for service in the future.

I know that some passengers on particular routes have faced higher increases than others, and I listened to what the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said about the 5% flex in rail fares. I am bound to point out, however, that it was the last Labour Government who introduced that flex in 2004.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Justine Greening and Edward Leigh

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The way to provide that guarantee and certainty is to pass the Bill before us today, which sets up the Office for Budget Responsibility—but does so, critically, as an independent organisation that will make its own forecasts. In so doing, it will contribute to being independent of Governments and provide credible official forecasts for the first time in our country. That will give us the certainty we need. I will come on to explain later how we ended up needing official forecasts to be done independently, referring to the problems that had arose prior to this Parliament.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Government have a serious political difficulty, to which the Justice Secretary referred over the weekend, giving rise to a considerable amount of publicity. All over the country, local authorities are loading cuts on to front-line services, yet we read today that scores of local authority executives earn more than the Prime Minister. What is the Minister’s message to local authorities? Will she insist that they deliver real efficiency savings to avoid these cuts in front-line services, which are so politically damaging?

[Justine Greening]

rose—