MP scores major victory on school funding
05.11.07
Government U-turns on school cash clawback plan
Local
schools are celebrating after Labour Ministers were forced into a
humiliating backdown over plans to clawback cash from schools,
following pressure from Liberal Democrat MPs, including Kingston MPs,
Edward Davey and Susan Kramer.
The
Government proposal was to impose what Edward Davey described as a “5%
tax” on school balances. Up to 48 schools in Kingston and Surbiton
could have been hit by this, even affecting money already committed to
major building projects. The worst affected schools in Kingston and
Surbiton would have been Tiffin Girls School, Coombe Girls School, Castle
Hill Primary.
After
local headteachers contacted Edward Davey, Edward raised the issue with
the Liberal Democrats’ Education Spokesman, David Laws, and jointly
tabled a Commons motion condemning the idea. Mr Laws also wrote to the
Schools Secretary, Ed Balls MP[1]. Commenting, Edward Davey MP said:
“This daft idea should never have seen the light of day.
“Headteachers and governors in Kingston were rightly outraged about how
the claw back was set to have a significant impact on their schools’
budgets, in some cases interfering with plans they had been working on
for several years.
“Ministers must now accept not only that their proposals were wrong,
but that they must not resurrect them in a year’s time when the row has
died down.
“The fact that such absurd proposals were put forward in the first
place highlights a wider problem with the way this Government works. Do
ministers seriously believe that they know better how to run our
schools than Kingston and Surbiton’s headteachers and governing bodies?”
Notes to Editors
1. The Government last week announced in a parliamentary
statement that the proposed claw back of school finances would no
longer be implemented. David Laws first revealed the effect of the
proposed change through questions in parliament
2. Edward Davey MP supported his Liberal Democrat David
Laws table an Early Day Motion in parliament condemning the
proposals.
3. The Liberal Democrats challenged the Government on the
proposals on Friday 18th October and last week David Laws wrote to Ed
Balls urging him to scrap the plan.
4. The text of David Laws’ letter to Ed Balls: [1]
I am writing to you in advance of the closing date this
week for consultation on the Government’s proposal to claw back 5% of
school balances in 2008/09. This policy
was developed before you took over as Secretary of State, and I believe
that it is profoundly misguided. I hope that you will decide to scrap
the proposed changes.
The reasons that the policy is wrong are:
1. It will claw back over £250m over three years
from schools cash balances - but almost two thirds of these balances
are already committed to specific capital projects. So, this will be a
real blow to schools which have saved, and raised funds, for major
development. This is already causing fury amongst many schools which
have been saving up for years for much needed investment. 20,500
schools will have their bank balances raided under these plans - 90% of
all schools.
2. It will claw back monies based on balances as at 31st March 2007 - even when the money has since
been spent. This will cause outrage amongst a small number of schools.
3. There are already powers to claw back money from
uncommitted balances. Clear abuses of the system (such as just building
up huge cash balances for long periods) can already be dealt with.
4. It will drive us back to the old fashioned public
sector accounting which forced public services to spend balances before
the end of the school year “for the sake if it”. This is, as you know,
inefficient. It cuts across the approach to long term budgeting which
you yourself led on during your period at the Treasury.
5. It will fine schools for holding Standards Fund Monies
even though these funds are specifically not required to be spent until
the end of August. This plainly makes no sense.
6. It will force schools to spend balances at precisely
the time when we are going into a period of much slower growth in the
schools budgets. This slower growth period (2008 to 2011) will have the
likely effect of running down the total balances figure anyway - but at
least schools can determine their own priorities. But the point is that
this policy is peculiarly badly timed.
7. The policy penalises prudent schools and rewards those
who have been either less prudent or who accidentally happen to have
just spent their capital on a large project. This is plainly irrational.
This particular policy is very unpopular indeed with
Headteachers and governing bodies. The money recycled will not make a
major impact on schools funding. It is opposed by most teaching unions.
It sits very badly with the Government’s claim to be handing powers
back to local areas and to the front-line deliverers of public services.
You would get an enormous amount of credit for thinking
again about this proposal, and consigning it to the departmental waste
paper basket.
|
