School Funding

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and to have the opportunity yet again to speak on the important subject of our schools.

On Monday evening, I asked the shadow Secretary of State whether her debate about students was playing politics with students. She did not directly answer me then, but she answered me today and made it absolutely and explicitly clear that her reason for calling this debate was directly linked to the upcoming elections, so she is playing politics not only with our students, but with our school children. It was very disappointing to hear that. There were one or two parts of her speech with which I agreed and I will come to them in a few moments, but there was much with which I disagreed.

The old system over which Labour presided had areas with similar characteristics receiving vastly different sums of money. That was not because of deprivation. Had it been because of areas of deprivation, I could have looked my constituents in the eye and said, “The reason you are receiving £2,000 per pupil less than students in another part of the country is that the area in which you live is not as deprived.” That was not the reason. It was because of historical anomalies and because successive Governments had failed to tackle the problem. This Government have tackled it. Dorset was in the bottom 11 for funding of local authorities and Poole was in the bottom two—the two local authorities that cover my constituency.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), who is no longer in her place, mentioned the f40 campaign. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who most recently led that campaign and made determined arguments to Government as to the historic unfairness of the old system. I know that he is itching to speak in this debate but, given his elevation and his new role in the Education Department, he is forbidden from doing so. None the less, I pay tribute to him for his role as chairman of the f40 campaign.

As a direct result of that campaign, the national funding formula has been introduced by this Government. As I have said, the issue was sadly ducked in the past. The Labour party had the opportunity to grasp it but it ducked it. As a direct result of the change, schools in Dorset will receive a 4.2% increase and, in Poole, a 3.8% increase in 2019-20 compared with 2015-16.

We should look at funding not just in this country, but internationally. I was delighted that the Secretary of State mentioned the international comparisons. For example, spending per pupil in England is higher than in Germany and Japan. I would like the Schools Minister to consider whether it is higher than in France. The international tables suggest that our spending per pupil is higher than in France as well as than in Germany and Japan. Can he confirm that in closing the debate?

Real-terms spending has also gone up. The motion mentions a “cash terms increase”, but this Government have gone further than that because there are real-terms school spending increases. Per pupil spending in 2019-20 will be more than 50% higher than it was under Labour in 2000-01. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich did accept, perhaps slightly grudgingly, that more money is going in. Perhaps we need to have more clarity and more acceptance of that fact from the Labour party—[Interruption.] I have mentioned per pupil funding. I will repeat what I said, because I do not think that the shadow Secretary of State was listening. Per pupil funding in 2019-20 will be 50% higher than under Labour in 2000-01.

This is not just about spending; it is also about what is actually done with that money. Whether we make international comparisons, or compare our record with Labour’s record, we are spending more. However, that should not be the test. The test should be what is actually done with the money. That is where the shadow Secretary of State did say one thing that was right. She did say that it is not just about the money and she is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett) also dwelt on that point.

The question is, what to do with that money? What do we as parents want? What does any of us want? We want our children to be happy, to go to a good school, to achieve their potential and to get the best results that they possibly can. Now that we have shown, and now that some on the Labour Benches have accepted, that we are spending more money than ever before, we need to turn the conversation to look not just at money, but at standards—what we are actually doing with that money—and to congratulate our teachers who are doing such a good job.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

An independent study by the Education Policy Institute said that Labour-run Harrow was the most improved education authority in the country and that the progress that pupils make in Harrow is greater than anywhere else in the UK when they start at secondary school. Therefore, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would follow the example of other Conservatives who have blessed us with their presence for campaigning purposes in Harrow and perhaps bring with him the Schools Minister to see what works so well in Harrow. If he does, I warn him that he will hear stories from headteachers, parents and governors starved of resources at Harrow schools and worried about whether they will be able to maintain the high standards that they have achieved because of real-terms cuts in funding.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I would be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation. In fact, I am campaigning elsewhere tomorrow. Had I not been, I would certainly have taken him up on his offer and come to Harrow. When I do so, I will ensure that I let him know. He is right is this respect: he is right to look at standards. He is right to look at the output and to congratulate our teachers when they do that excellent work, as I do now. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those teachers in Mid Dorset and North Poole. I have said in this place before that I am somebody who has run away from teaching. I come from a family of teachers and I admire them. Some of the best things that I do in this Chamber and in this House involve my work with schools—both welcoming schools and pupils here and also when I visit schools back home in Dorset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. Ministers are listening to this, and it is an ongoing debate and process. The figures published late last year are an indication of the progress that we are making. The facts have been checked by independent sources such as Full Fact, which has said that it is “correct” to say that school spending is at record levels. The shadow Secretary of State quoted the IFS. I will repeat what the IFS said, which is that the extra £1.3 billion for schools means that school spending will not fall but will stay the same per pupil. And that is the key point. There are not actually school cuts; there are pressures and costs, but the funding is increasing.

I have some questions for the Minister from primary schools in Lewes. First, will the Minister confirm that the pupil premium will be ongoing for the long term? Schools have found that extremely helpful. The second question is a request for a long-term funding settlement, not a year-on-year one, as it would make long-term planning easier for schools. Thirdly, schools would like us to use the census data starting from January, not October, because they are sometimes carrying pupils for the length of the school year, but are not actually being paid for them. Those are three requests from primary schools in Lewes, in a serious debate about school funding.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not for the moment.

How have the unions reacted to this debate? Do they welcome this school funding? Do they welcome the Government redressing the balance between urban and rural areas? No. The National Union of Teachers has been quite open about making this a political campaign. In fact, it spent £326,000 campaigning on this issue during the general election last year—more than the Green party and UKIP. The union uses this issue as a political football for election purposes. That is a shocking state of affairs.

The NUT sent letters to parents, frightening them about school funding cuts that were not actually coming, and put banners in schools telling parents how much their children would be losing, when that was not true at all. It spread lies and fear. It is under investigation by the Electoral Commission for submitting incomplete spending returns. Given the funding announcements after the election, hon. Members might think that there would be a consensus to support the Government and welcome the funding increase. But no—the joint general secretary urged members at a recent conference in Brighton to ramp up their efforts ahead of the local elections as school funding is a top concern for voters. This is the true reason that we are having this debate. The NUT said about the issue of school funding that

“if voters changed their mind because of that—then we are pleased…We make no apology. We will do it again.”

That is the whole purpose of today’s debate. It is about next Thursday; it is not about schools funding or the future of our children.

Just look at the example of Labour authorities up and down the country, including Brighton and Hove, right next door to me, where some of my constituents send their children to school. The council there has been having issues taking in more children. Brighton’s The Argus newspaper investigated this case in an exposé by their lead reporter, Joel Adams. The council told parents that it had no money and could not accommodate children, and that this was all down to Government cuts. The Argus found, however, that the Government had actually given Brighton and Hove City Council £15 million to deal with the problem and build new classrooms, and that the Labour council had refused to spend it. It preferred to send out letters scaremongering parents and to put up banners on railings than to spend the £15 million that it was given by this Conservative Government. That is the truth.

Some of the schools in my constituency that sent letters to parents have now had an 8% increase in funding. When I challenged them on this, they said that there is pressure from the unions to get the message out. It is absolutely disgraceful. Opposition Members should be ashamed of themselves for raising this fear and scaremongering. But the truth is out today, because we heard it from the shadow Secretary of State; we all know that this is about the elections next Thursday.

I will close my speech with another irony. The whole point of this debate was to challenge parties about what they put in their manifesto and how they will find the money. Well, what did the Labour party put in its manifesto? Abolishing tuition fees. But once the election was over, that was suddenly just an aspiration and the abacus was put into storage for the next general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech in this debate. I had attempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who it is a pleasure to follow.

I will take this opportunity to praise the work of all the teachers across the country, particularly—if the House will forgive me—those at Harrow schools. I commend the governors of Harrow schools for their leadership, but some credit is also due to local authorities, particularly to a local authority that has been recognised by the independent analysis of the Education Policy Institute as offering the best education in the country. It is a Labour council facing huge cutbacks as a result of the Government’s austerity policies. More than £100 million has been lost, yet it still provides as good a service as it is able to for our schools.

I gently say to Conservative Members that there is certainly a case for schools in rural areas to receive more funding. I do not dispute that. But there is also a strong argument that schools in urban areas, such as my own, should also be receiving additional funding. I gently chide the Conservative Members who I have had the chance to listen to this afternoon for not acknowledging the challenges that headteachers and teachers in urban areas such as mine face in managing budgets that are shrinking in real terms. For example, most primary schools in my constituency have lost teaching assistants in the last 12 months.

I gently suggest to any Conservative MPs wanting to campaign in local elections in Harrow that they are extremely welcome; I would happily facilitate meetings with headteachers in my constituency, so that they can hear from the horse’s mouth—from those at the coalface of education in Harrow—about the challenges that they face in managing shrinking budgets. There is second issue around capital, which I will come to in a minute.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman asks us to sympathise with his schools, but how can we do that when our schools receive a fraction of the funding per head that his schools get?

[Gareth Thomas]

I will take back to my constituents the fact that a Conservative MP is saying that schools in Harrow should be cut to fund schools in his area. Had he asked whether I would join him in calling for more funding to be invested in education, I would have been happy to consider that. I repeat to him the offer that I made to his Conservative colleagues: if he wants to come and campaign in my constituency and help to achieve an even bigger Labour majority on Harrow Council, he would be very welcome to do so. I would happily facilitate for him a meeting with the headteachers of a couple of the primary schools who had to axe teaching assistant positions just in the past 12 months alone.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

rose—

[Gareth Thomas]

I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again, if he will forgive me, because I want to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not think that either hon. Member was here at the very beginning of this debate, and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) had not indicated that he wished to speak. Of course he has every right to speak, but I hope that he will pay respect to the amount of time that he is taking out of other people’s speeches.

[Gareth Thomas]

It is for exactly that reason that I was resisting the very agreeable temptation, in other circumstances, to allow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to intervene a second time.

My last point is about capital funding. It would be good to hear from the Schools Minister that he might be sympathetic to further requests from Harrow schools for the additional capital they need to tackle asbestos hazards and which are not fit for purpose as a result, or from schools that need further investment as a result of an increase in population in Harrow. We have been starved, as other areas have, of the capital that is needed to invest in our schools. I hope that that issue will be addressed, if not now, then at a future Budget.