Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Steve Reed and Stephen Timms

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

There is a lot of worry about the proposals, and I hope that the Government will assure us that there will be no real-term cuts in the funding of individual schools. Half a billion pounds could go a long way to achieving that, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give us that assurance.

As we have heard, the Red Book contains a chapter called the “Devolution Revolution”, but the Budget ends local authority influence over education, which always used to be devolved. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane said that it was wonderful that we will have one system for education in the future, but I thought the Government were in favour of devolution, and the Red Book claims that they are. It is a big contradiction to proclaim devolution on the one hand, at the same time as ending local influence over education.

I am particularly sceptical about the benefits of turning every primary school into an academy, because I have seen no evidence that doing that will be a good thing. The Minister and the Secretary of State will know of local educational authorities—other Members have spoken of them in the debate—that do a very good job in supporting the local network of primary schools, enabling schools that are struggling to be supported, for example by a gifted head from another school nearby. I therefore want to put this question to the Minister and ask him to respond on behalf of the Secretary of State: what is the case for simply dismantling and smashing up all the successful arrangements of that kind?

The Church of England referred in its response to

“the particular challenges that many smaller primary schools will face as they seek to develop such partnerships”.

The Sutton Trust was quoted by the Secretary of State and by me in an intervention. It rightly makes the point in its impressive research that good

“academy chains are having a transformational impact on pupils’ life chances”,

which is a very good thing, but it also says that

“others have seriously underperformed and have expanded too rapidly.”

That is why I pressed the Secretary of State specifically on whether the mass process of turning every primary school and every remaining secondary maintained school into an academy will be done by adding those schools on to existing chains, too many of which are underperforming. Only about a third are doing well, according to the Sutton Trust. The chains that are doing badly are doing badly because they have expanded too quickly. The process could make that far worse by forcing hundreds of additional schools into those same underperforming chains. I therefore press the Minister again. I did not get the assurance I was seeking from the Secretary of State that the process would not be done by adding new schools on to underperforming chains. I hope he can give us that reassurance in his response.

Local authority support for families of primary schools is successful. Do the Government envisage those simply being rebadged as multi-academy trusts? Perhaps that is one way out of the problem. Destroying those arrangements is potentially very damaging.

[Mr Steve Reed]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. What are his thoughts on the initiatives of Labour councils such as Brighton and Hove, which are setting up co-operatives for their schools to join together to try to undermine the Government’s attempts to isolate and atomise schools?

[Stephen Timms]

I very much welcome that. I thought everybody agreed that diversity in school provision was a good idea rather than having the one-size-fits-all model for which the hon. Member for Taunton Deane argued. Surely we should be encouraging exactly the kind of arrangement that my hon. Friend draws attention to, so that we can enjoy the benefits of the diversity that results.

I am glad that, in opening the debate for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) focused on the failures that the Budget highlighted yesterday. The OBR pointed out to us that the Chancellor had three fiscal rules in the run-up to yesterday’s Budget. He has broken two of those. He has broken his commitment, which was made less than a year ago, to reduce debt as a proportion of GDP in every year. We had that rather puzzling passage in the Budget speech when the Chancellor talked about numerators and denominators and a paradoxical outcome. It turns that he was saying that he had failed on that rule.

The second rule he failed was on the welfare cap. It is hard to think of any Treasury legislation of the past 20 years that has backfired so spectacularly as the welfare cap. It was legislated for last summer with great fanfare, but within weeks it was announced that it would be broken. The OBR now tells us that it will be broken in every single year of this Parliament. The whole thing has become a complete fiasco.

The third rule that the Chancellor went into the Budget with was the commitment on delivering a surplus. Of course, in the last Parliament, the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s project was to eradicate the deficit by 2015. He failed on that, and it now looks very likely that he will fail to achieve the surplus he has promised by 2019-20. To deliver it would require extraordinary fiscal tightening in what will almost certainly be the year leading up to the next general election. I cannot see that happening. By then, the Chancellor will have failed on all three of his rules.

The Budget raises important questions and I hope we get answers on the specific education points when the Minister winds up.