We have tabled this debate this morning as a result of the work that I have been doing, as the education spokesman for the Conservative Party, in meeting teachers, headteachers, governors and parents. Several concerns have been raised, during the two years that I have been in post, about the manner in which education in Wales is funded. Recently, and especially in the last year, there has been confusion in the schools sector and it has reached a new peak. The so-called funding fog seems to have thickened. Members may be aware of that from their postbags. When I reflect on the work that has been conducted in Committee and the working relationship that I have had with teaching unions and headteachers across Wales, there appears to be a problem. It is time for the administration to address the concerns that have been raised.

The amendments before us do little to advance the debate, with the exception of Plaid Cymru’s amendments 4 and 8, which we will support. Those amendments appear to want to revisit the Assembly’s budget debates. Although I am sure that that is well intentioned, that is not the sole or core purpose of this debate. This debate is about how we spend money on education. The question of how much we spend is valid, but separate.

The Liberal Democrat and Labour amendments are typically cowardly. They attempt to dodge the main issue behind today’s debate, which is about cutting through the funding fog. Their amendments indicate that they are in denial about the magnitude of the problem and they propose no solutions to address it. The Conservative group asks the Assembly to reject all amendments in the names of Andrew Davies and Kirsty Williams.

When I meet headteachers and governors across Wales, they complain that they do not get enough of the money allocated to education by the Assembly. In many cases, we see nice increases in the total amount of money given to the education sector, but headteachers and governors complain that they cannot get their hands on sufficient amounts of that money to spend in their schools. They say that too much is being kept back by local councils or spent on things other than education.

You do not have to take my word, and I would not expect you to do so. You should ask the Secondary Heads Association or the National Association of Headteachers. Those unions have led the debate on school funding and the funding fog problems. The National Union of Teachers coined that well-known phrase, and that is what teaching unions and teachers are complaining about. They have no way of telling how much money their school should be receiving. They look at neighbouring schools in other local authorities, which are perhaps only a couple of miles away, and see that they receive considerably more for providing the same service. When they contact their local council, they are given nonsense about historical factors or other reasons.

One of the more extraordinary arguments presented was e-mailed to all Members on Tuesday by the Welsh Local Government Association, as a briefing for this debate. I publicly thank whoever sent that brief because it encapsulates the sort of attitude with which headteachers and teachers have had to put up. The brief stated that,

I had to re-read that startling statement when I first saw it. Is the WLGA saying that there is no relationship between pupil performance and the level of school funding? Is it saying that, if you halved or doubled a school’s budget, there would be no impact on pupil performance? That was an astounding suggestion and I invite the Minister to say whether she agrees with it.

If it is true, the welcome increase in funds that the Assembly is putting into education will not make the slightest difference to pupil results. I am sure that the Auditor General for Wales would have something to say about that. Ironically, the WLGA is the first organisation to argue that the extra resources that the Assembly wants to give to schools should, instead, be channelled through local authorities.

I firmly believe that parents and taxpayers in Wales want to see their hard-earned money directed to schools and not absorbed in local authorities. We have seen what I would term a local education authority Bermuda triangle. Parents and teachers cannot see why the middleman should take a slice other than to provide essential services, such as special needs and pupil support.

If anyone were to take a cursory glance at the latest education spending figures, they would be astounded by the diversions in spending per pupil and the levels of delegation between local authorities in Wales. One council in Wales keeps a quarter of its education budget for central services, but another gives nearly 85 per cent of its budget to schools. The spending-per-pupil situation is just as varied. For example, a primary school pupil in Denbighshire is worth £1,660, while a pupil in Ceredigion is worth £2,420. Why? Can this honestly be put down to miscellaneous factors?

At present, there is no way for a parent or teacher to know what a council should be spending on its school. In other words, there is no standard spending assessment for what could be devolved to school budgets. This means we have no way of knowing if a council is truly underspending on education. That is an unacceptable state of affairs. I know that the Minister may come up with the figure that local education authorities only spend a fraction of their budget on central bureaucracy. However, my point is not that there are tens of thousands of bureaucrats staffing LEA’s across Wales, but that there are wide divergences that cannot be put down to factors such as social disadvantage and rurality. The Minister and the Executive know that that is the case. Will the Minister tell us why the amount spent on central bureaucracy has increased by nearly nine per cent this year when the amount delegated to schools on a per pupil basis has only gone up by about 7 per cent? Why does Merthyr Tydfil spend £84 per pupil on central bureaucracy while Conwy gets away with £35? There are good reasons why some councils must spend more. We admit that, but the gap is too big to ignore.

There is a case to answer, but the Minister is unwilling to act. The Assembly deserves to know whether it is a lack of vision or blind loyalty to the former employers at the Welsh Local Government Association. The Minister knows what she can do to improve the situation. However, one of the answers is contained in her own Cabinet’s consultation paper issued last September. It states that the Assembly could issue clear benchmarks through a standard spending assessment for the level of delegated schools budgets. If we did that, we would be able to tell the LEA’s what they should be spending and the local electorate and the Assembly could decide if these levels are acceptable. I have no problem with local choice and local democracy. However, this must be conducted on an informed basis. I have no problem with taking into account factors such as rurality and social disadvantage. However, I do not like some LEA’s using these factors as an excuse to continue underspending.

The other answer the Minister may have given was also clear. She could help clear the funding fog by continuing and extending what the administration has done this year, but something that the Minister proposed to end next year. That is to give money via special grants as we have been doing and welcoming this year. Until November, it seemed that the Executive was going to take this direct payment route one step further. In March 2000, the Finance Minister announced that she was going to allocate between £3,000 and £9,000 to each primary school and between £30,000 and £50,000 to each secondary school in Wales. Headteachers rightly rejoiced. That proposal was one of the most popular proposals by an administration of any political colour. We welcomed it and it pointed towards a brave new world for education funding in Wales. I am afraid it all went wrong. Whereas the previous Secretary for education was content to give money to schools, the new Minister prefers to give it to councils. She announced that although secondary schools in England would receive an increase in direct payments in 2000-01, all such payments would cease in Wales. Jeff Jones and Russell Goodway were ecstatic, but the Secondary Heads Association was furious. The Minister must decide her priorities. Is she going to be a champion for Labour’s local council barons, or is she going to be a real Minister for Welsh schools? In case we receive the old canard about decisions made in Wales for Wales, let us remember that it was this Assembly, proposed by this Executive, that called for these direct payments. Let us not forget that it was passed unanimously by the Assembly on 16 May without a single dissenter.

In May, the Executive was in favour of direct payment, but we know that it is against them. Edwina Hart said, when proposing these direct payments on 12 April, that she had

‘every confidence that governing bodies, teachers and headteachers in schools will ensure that this money is wisely spent’.

I agree, and what is more, that has proved to be the case.

The Liberal Democrats, as usual, are no better. Peter Black, now the Deputy Minister for Local Government said on the same day,

‘we welcome paying money directly to schools’.

A month later, when the special grant report was debated, Jenny Randerson, who now sits comfortably in this Cabinet said,

‘I welcome the fact that the money is going straight to schools. I did a survey of every school in my constituency. They replied unanimously that they wanted to get their hands directly on the money….There is a great deal to be said for an additional amount of money that schools can spend as they wish’.

I could not agree more. However, it seems that the Liberals have not only sold out their supporters by joining this coalition, but they have sold out their principles as well. How can you say one thing before entering the administration, and then support a stack of wrecking amendments which support another, completely different, principle? The Liberal Democrats have a few questions to answer.

Where does this leave the National Assembly? It leaves us with an education minister who sees it as her task to represent Labour local government rather than to look after our schools, and Liberal Democrats who would rather sell their granny for a couple of seats in the Cabinet.

In closing, we need a fresh start, so that parents can see transparent funding; so that headteachers can spend education money as they see fit not as you see fit. This is a vision for our education system, and I challenge the Labour administration and their partners, the Liberal Democrats, in this debate. Find a vision for Wales that teachers and parents will share. Find a vision for Welsh education and find a vision for spending money wisely, because at the moment you are not doing the job.

Cynigiaf welliant 4. Ychwanegu ar ddiwedd cymal 2:

Cynigiaf welliant 5. Dileu cymalau 3 a 4 ac ychwanegu cymal newydd:

Cynigiaf welliant 8. Ychwanegu cymal newydd ar y diwedd:

Diolchaf i Geidwadwyr Cymru am ddewis y pwnc pwysig hwn ar gyfer eu dadl plaid leiafrifol, ond fel y dangosir gan ein gwelliannau ni, yr ydym o’r farn bod eu hargymhellion polisi ar gyfeiliorn. Mae’r ddadl yn rhoi cyfle i ni drafod tri chwestiwn o bwys mawr, sef yr angen am fwy o lawer o eglurder ynglŷn â faint o arian sydd yn cael ei wario ar addysg ysgol, a beth yn union sy’n digwydd i’r arian; a ddylid cyllido ysgolion yn uniongyrchol o’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, naill ai yn gyfan gwbl neu ar rai adegau neilltuol; a’r lefel o wariant ar addysg ysgol, ac a yw’n ddigonol? Yn wahanol i Jonathan Morgan, yr wyf yn teimlo bod y pwynt hwn yn berthnasol oherwydd ei fod wrth wraidd llawer o’r anfodlonrwydd yr ydym yn dod ar ei draws mewn ysgolion y dyddiau hyn.

Byddaf yn delio â’r cwestiynau hynny yn eu tro. Mae teimlad cyffredinol a chryf fod yr hyn sy’n cael ei alw’n ‘niwl cyllido’ yn ei gwneud yn anodd i ysgolion, llywodraethwyr a rhieni wybod a ydynt yn cael rhan deg o’r arian sy’n cael ei glustnodi ar gyfer addysg. Mae hynny’n creu drwgdybiaeth a drwgdeimlad tuag at awdurdodau addysg lleol a’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Mae’n rhaid gwneud rhywbeth ynglŷn â hynny. Byddai o gymorth pe bai David Blunkett yn rhoi’r gorau i siarad ac ymddwyn fel pe bai penderfynu ar flaenoriaethau gwario yng Nghymru yn fater iddo ef. Mae Ofsted, mae’n debyg, yn feirniadol o’r dryswch sydd yn cael ei achosi yn Lloegr gan yr holl symiau mân a mawr sydd yn cael eu gwasgaru ar wahanol adegau i gyfeiriad ysgolion at wahanol ddibenion ac yn arbennig i greu ffotogyfleoedd a datganiadau i’r wasg i Weinidogion. Pe baem yn datrys y broblem honno, byddem yn cael rhan o’r ateb.

Mae Plaid Cymru yn cymeradwyo argymhelliad y Comisiwn Archwilio y dylai’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol gyhoeddi blociau gwahanol yr asesiad gwariant safonol. Byddai hynny yn galluogi ysgolion i weld pa gyfran o’r gyllideb genedlaethol ar gyfer addysg sydd yn cyrraedd eu siroedd arbennig hwy, ac yna’n cyrraedd yr ysgolion unigol.

Ynglŷn â’r ail gwestiwn, nid yw hyn yn golygu y dylai’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol gyfarwyddo awdurdodau lleol ynglŷn â’r ffordd i rannu eu cyllidebau. Nid ydym o blaid pridiannu. Byddai hynny’n tanseilio ymhellach ddilysrwydd democrataidd awdurdodau lleol, a’u gallu i ymateb i ofynion lleol. Nid yw’r Ceidwadwyr o blaid cadw awdurdodau addysg lleol. Fodd bynnag, mae Plaid Cymru am weld eu rôl a’u hymreolaeth yn cael eu cryfhau. Mae cwestiwn pwysig yn codi ynglŷn â’r amrywiaeth mawr mewn lefelau gwariant ar addysg rhwng y gwahanol siroedd.

The UK Conservative Party and the Welsh Conservatives are in favour of retaining local education authorities, but our proposal is to severely reduce the role of LEAs. More accountability in decision making would be given to headteachers, but there would be a certain level of agreed services with the LEAs, so they would be retained, but not in their present form.

Asiantaethau addysg lleol fyddai’r rheini yn hytrach nag awdurdodau addysg lleol. Dyna’r gwahaniaeth. Mae cwestiwn pwysig ynglŷn â’r amrywiaeth mewn lefelau gwariant ar addysg rhwng y gwahanol siroedd, ond yr hyn sydd ei angen eto yw eglurder ynglŷn â’r rhesymau dros yr amrywiaeth. Hefyd, fel y dywed y Comisiwn Archwilio, yn hytrach na chynyddu targedau i ddirprwyo cyllidebau ymhellach, dylai’r Llywodraeth egluro disgwyliadau awdurdodau addysg lleol. Dyna pam ein bod yn fodlon cefnogi gwelliannau 6 a 7 yn enw Andrew Davies a Kirsty Williams.

Dyma droi at y trydydd pwynt a’r pwysicaf. Dengys y dystiolaeth yn glir fod lefel cyllido i ysgolion yng Nghymru yn ddifrifol o annigonol.

Mae’r ddogfen ‘Cyllido’r Gwasanaeth Addysg yng Nghymru’, a gafodd ei chyhoeddi tua blwyddyn yn ôl gan yr undebau athrawon, Llywodraethwyr Cymru a fforwm addysg gogledd-orllewin Cymru, yn dangos sut y lleihaodd lefel gwariant ar addysg yng Nghymru mewn cymhariaeth â Lloegr ers 1994-95. Digwyddodd hynny o dan y Torïaid, wrth gwrs.

Erbyn 1996-97, yr oedd gwariant y pen yn y sector cynradd yng Nghymru £71 yn is nag yn Lloegr a £121 yn is yn y sector uwchradd. Mae’r gwahaniaeth â’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn gannoedd o bunnoedd nid yn ddegau.

Pan ymrwymodd y Llywodraeth Lafur newydd i fuddsoddi £19 biliwn yn ychwanegol mewn addysg a hyfforddiant rhwng 1997 a 2000, dim ond £844 miliwn, sef 4.4 y cant a wariwyd yng Nghymru, sydd llawer yn llai na chyfran gyfatebol.

Mewn erthygl ddiweddar yn y cylchgrawn Agenda, mae David Reynolds yn rhestru rhai o’r rhesymau pam y mae darparu addysg yng Nghymru’n ddrutach nag yn Lloegr. Dywed

‘Pan ddown ni at faint sydd ar gael i ysgolion i wario ar lyfrau, cyfarpar, deunyddiau dysgu ac ati, mae’n debygol nad yw Cymru ddim ond yn gwario ffracsiwn o’r hyn a werir yn Lloegr.’

Pa ryfedd bod athrawon yn ysgolion y Gororau yn cenfigennu at allu gwario eu cymrodyr dros y ffin. Mae hynny’n amlwg os ydych yn ymweld ag ysgolion megis y Trallwng yn Sir Drefaldwyn.

Gwaethygu ac nid gwella fydd y gymhariaeth dros y tair blynedd nesaf. O dan yr adolygiad cynhwysfawr o wariant, bydd y gyllideb addysg a hyfforddiant yn codi 2 y cant yn fwy yn Lloegr nag yng Nghymru. Bydd cynnydd Cymru ychydig dros hanner yr hyn a fydd yn Lloegr. Pe bai codiad cyfartal, byddai hynny’n golygu £80 miliwn yn rhagor dros y tair blynedd nesaf, tua £26 miliwn y flwyddyn ar gyfartaledd. Byddai hynny’n gwneud gwahaniaeth, er na fyddai ond yn mynd rhan o’r ffordd i gau’r bwlch. Byddai’n golygu na fyddai o leiaf ddau awdurdod lleol yn fy etholaeth i—Sir Gâr a Phowys—yn rhybuddio ysgolion eu bod yn wynebu toriadau yn ystod y flwyddyn ariannol nesaf. Dyna pam yr wyf yn synnu i weld enw Kirsty Williams wrth welliant 3, sydd fel petai yn cymeradwyo’r syniad bod Cymru’n cael bargen deg ar hyn o bryd.

Mae’n bryd inni gael undod yn y Cynulliad hwn, fel sydd yn bodoli ar draws y wlad, gan fod yn rhaid cywiro’r camwri hwn. Yr ydym yn gwybod beth sydd yn ei achosi, anghyfiawnder fformwla Barnett a’r ffaith ein bod yn gorfod cyllido cymaint o raglenni’r cronfeydd Ewropeaidd ar draul ein cyllidebau craidd, gan gynnwys addysg ysgol. Nid apologia dros Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig sydd eisiau arnom, ond undod i ymgyrchu dros chwarae teg i Gymru. Yn niffyg yr undod hwnnw, bydd Plaid Cymru’n arwain yr ymgyrch honno, yn benodol, dros y tri mis nesaf, wrth inni agosáu at ryw ddigwyddiad gwleidyddol pwysig y ceir sôn amdano ond nad ydym i fod i gyfeirio ato yn y Cynulliad hwn.

I propose amendment 3. Delete clause 2 and replace with:

I propose amendment 6. Delete clause 3 and replace with:

I propose amendment 7. Delete clause 4 and replace with:

Thank you, Jonathan, for bringing this important debate to the Assembly today. When one sees the passion that Jonathan and Cynog have brought to this debate, it shows how important it is to discuss education in Wales. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I also welcome the opportunity to address what are, from my perspective, misunderstandings and misrepresentations in the motion and in the speakers’ contributions.

It is important to clarify at the outset that we reject the first clause of the motion simply because it is incorrect. Core funding for education in Wales has historically been delivered through local authorities and not by direct payment to schools. Jonathan, you referred specifically to £20.5 million going direct to schools last year. However, it did not. It went through local authorities, because we had no mechanism whereby we paid directly to schools. In such an important debate, we must be semantically correct. We did the same thing with the further special grant of £7.9 million before Christmas, that focused on raising standards and making sufficient money available to pay for school management teams. When we did that we set strict conditions for local authorities about how long it should take to get that money out to schools. For example, it was agreed on 19 December to allocate the money to local authorities at the beginning of January with an instruction that schools should receive the funds in the second half of the month.

We must remember that this is not a new policy. The policy of partnership with local government in Wales, where local decisions are made on the basis of local needs and local authorities determine their spend at a local level, was supported by the Conservative Government and has continued to be supported by the Labour Government. There has been no change in policy. We recognise that making additional money available to schools for specific purposes is welcomed by schools, as you have suggested, and it is beneficial to the Assembly in fulfilling its policy ambitions.

Sometimes we might choose to allocate extra money to all schools in Wales in addition to the revenue support grant money, as we did last year with those two grants. Contrary to the motion and your assertion, I am on record saying that we have every intention of continuing such arrangements as appropriate and in discussion with our partners in the Welsh Local Government Association. Such approaches are not strategic. They do not take account of local needs, which is why we believe in local democracy and local education authorities rather than agencies for a small amount of spend. Therefore, we must use these approaches sparingly if our overall aim is to drive up standards of education and attainment the length and breadth of Wales. We have a long way to go to address the chronic underfunding that was the legacy of the last Government. I pay tribute to the overall spend on education in Wales by our local education authorities.

I take on board your views—I am sure that they are well-intentioned—about the role of local authorities but in terms of identifying local needs, are not headteachers and local school governors of schools best placed to determine what they are? I do not see why councillors need to determine local needs in the provision of education when headteachers and their staff are better placed to do so.

That is where we fundamentally disagree. I agree that headteachers are best placed to identify local needs, along with governing bodies and the members of their staff—I do not see headteachers as isolated from the rest of their staff—and that they are responsible for delivering the best possible education in individual schools. As an Assembly, we have a strategic responsibility to address some of the variations that you, and Cynog mentioned. We can only address those variations if we have a strategic approach. I pay tribute to the overall spend on education in Wales by our local education authorities.

The key fact is that school funding has increased ahead of inflation, year on year, since 1997 after years of underinvestment. The mechanism for funding has stayed the same, the amounts have not. In terms of information about resources staying at the centre in local authorities, on average 1.8 per cent is used to deliver central services. That is a good and welcome figure. What is not so welcome is that Merthyr spends £84 and Conwy spends £36. We need to look at those variations in spend so that we can look at how local authorities run those services.

We will embark on the best value monitoring arrangements this year. I can assure you that I will keep a close eye on these issues. In its recent report, ‘Money Matters: school funding and resource management’, the Audit Commission confirmed that mainstream funding for schools should be channelled through local authorities. Since 1997, LEAs in Wales have invested money over and above the Government allocation and that is to be welcomed. Provision increased by £50 million in 1998-99, LEAs increased budgets by £60 million and delegated school budgets increased by £48 million. In 1999-2000 the increase was £70.2 million, LEAs increased their budgets by £73 million and delegated budgets increased by £56 million. This year, provision increased by £91 million, LEAs increased their budgets by £92 million and schools delegated budgets, with new areas of delegation, rose by £100 million.

The continuation of funding through local authorities is right for Wales. In August last year, our statistics department published statistics comparing spend in England and Wales on a like for like basis. In 2000-01, our LEA funding has delivered an average of £2,870 per pupil, which is higher than in eight of the 10 English regions and higher than the average funding in England, excluding London’s £2,840. There is no disadvantage in funding levels in Wales compared with England, as the Plaid Cymru amendment contends. However, we share Members’ concerns about the wide variation of pupil spend. It is £3,570 per pupil in Ceredigion, which is probably the highest spending authority in Britain, and £2,553 in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Amendment 6 commends the work that we do with the WLGA to better understand why such a wide variation exists. I hope to publish those conclusions shortly. It is an important piece of work and we must start to address the unacceptable variations. This is not only a Welsh phenomenon. Our colleagues across the border have similar problems and we as an Assembly should learn how to address these issues, many of which have a historical base.

On amendment 8, we already publish comparisons with England and I am happy to work on doing the same with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important that we look for like for like comparisons. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different systems. We are eager to ensure that we make direct comparisons.

I was given to understand that I had 10 minutes during this debate, with one contribution. I apologise, but I am, therefore, well within my 10 minutes.

In England, a much higher proportion of funding is centrally directed through the standards fund. That constrains local decision-making, ties up local authorities and schools in the bureaucracy of bidding for and administering grants. We know that such approaches can backfire.

I sought clarification on that point this morning. I was told that I had 10 minutes.

Thank you, Llywydd. I draw attention to the fact that we have debated at length in the Assembly the positive initiatives referred to by other Members. I was pleased that Jonathan said that this was not a debate about what the Assembly is doing and that he recognises the Assembly’s substantial work to drive forward the education agenda for Wales.

A consultation document on simplifying the system is out at present—

I was about to bring my remarks to a close by saying that that document is still out to consultation. It addresses some of the transparency issues. I urge Members to support amendments 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 to the motion to recognise the significant additional funding that is provided for schools and our commitment to all involved in the education system in Wales in order to get it right.

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight how the Government’s funding fog has affected specific schools in the Monmouth constituency. Last year, David Blunkett made a grandiose announcement that £35 million was being made available for the new AS level courses. This should have meant £29,000 to Chepstow Comprehensive School. Schools of similar size across the border in the Bristol area received that money. When Mr Hywel Gruffydd, the headteacher of Chepstow Comprehensive School, asked the local education authority for the money that was rightfully his, it claimed to have no knowledge of it. The outcome was that headteachers in Wales, such as Mr Gruffydd were forced to fund these new courses from within their existing budgets, at great expense.

This year we have had more grandiose announcements. A school the size of Chepstow Comprehensive School should have received £60,000, inflation-linked for three years, as a result of yet another announcement from David Blunkett. It should also have received an additional £60,000 and £40,000 for building maintenance, making a total of £160,000. This is not largesse money, some sort of generous gift from the Government because it wants to spend some of its huge surplus. This money is there for building maintenance, so that the post-16 exams can be reformed, for ICT and for cutting red-tape and bureaucracy.

The Secondary Heads Association has been assured that the Department for Education and Employment have made this money available to schools in Wales through the block grant for the Welsh Assembly. I challenge the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to tell us today how much of that money Chepstow Comprehensive School will receive. The problem is that this Government is fond of making big announcements about huge amounts of extra funding for various initiatives. However, as my colleague so ably pointed out earlier this morning, that money does not find its way down to headteachers and pupils. The money is not here. I will conclude by quoting the words of Hywel Gruffydd, the headteacher of Chepstow Comprehensive School, in a recent letter:

Members may laugh at my pronunciation of the word ‘obfustication’, but that is the word of a headteacher of a local comprehensive in Wales. If you care about education, stop trying to split hairs over how I pronounce that word and start thinking about the pupils who are losing out in Wales as a result of your policies.

I am pleased of the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to the fact that she is aware of the variation in pupil-spend between authorities and that she is actively looking at it, investigating it, working with our partners in the local education authorities and will report back in the future. As I represent Blaenau Gwent, I am concerned about that and also the figures for GEST, the grants for educational and training programme. As the Minister knows, we in Blaenau Gwent, which is a deprived area, received about £100 per year for children under GEST, as it does not recognise social deprivation. Areas such as Powys get £160 a year and Monmouthshire, £103 a year. Therefore, there are many issues that must be considered.

I was interested to hear Jonathan Morgan say that this was not about overall funding figures. The reason he said that was because the Conservatives know that we are putting huge amounts into education and that we are therefore achieving many of our targets. The Minister has strongly outlined that this morning. Cynog Dafis referred to the appalling record of the Conservatives regarding their spending on education. They should hang their heads in shame today. It is amazing that they should come here and have the audacity to even raise a debate on education.

Does the Member not accept that the amount of money spent on education as a proportion of GDP has fallen since Labour came to Government?

I am listening to the Conservative Party who represents, to my mind, a bunch of political joyriders. They are gamblers and malcontents. I have to listen to them every week. These are the people who are responsible for the crumbling schools that we have to deal with. These are the people who introduced the divisive grant-maintained schools.

I am giving way to Jonathan.

In referring to malcontents, has Peter talked to headteachers, governors or the teaching unions who deliver education services in Wales? I would rather listen to them than members of the Cabinet who spend their time on the fifth floor of this building. They are the ones who know about what is going on in schools, not the people who sit on cosy town hall sofas, colleagues of yours in Blaenau Gwent and throughout the rest of Wales, who make decisions about schools when they do not set foot in a school. We need to be looking more imaginatively about how money reaches schools. We want their concerns and complaints recognised.

I have nothing but the highest regard for trade unions, teachers and professionals who look after our children. I respect their views. My comments referred to Conservative Party Assembly Members. We remember the Redwood subsidy for England. The Conservatives talk about money and we must remember how much money was sent back by John Redwood. Do you remember those days when we subsidised England? Do you remember the nursery vouchers that the Conservatives wanted to implement? Thankfully, we were able to save Wales from having to suffer those vouchers. That was what they were going to do for education.

The Conservatives talk about local authorities, but local authorities are the democratically elected representatives of the people. People in local authorities were elected by the ballot box, first past the post. They were not elected on a lottery system like some Conservative Members here. These local education authorities have acted in the interests of the people of their communities. We would expect the Conservatives to be against them because they have always been centralists, and they have never appreciated local democracy and have always attacked it. That is the difference. Therefore, what we are hearing today is important for our communities and schools.

The Minister has told us that there is provision for an increase of £91 million, that local education authorities’ overall budgets increased by £92 million, that school delegated budgets rose by £100 million. These are big figures and these issues are important. That is what is making the difference as far as the future of our children is concerned. That is the important point. It is all about partnership. I agree that the key responsibility for school funding and the associated budgetary decisions, probably rests with local government. We do not need hypothecation because we are going to have policy agreements, and we will work with our partners in local government to deliver the best quality and best value regime. As we have said on many occasions, that will ensure that we have the opportunity to see that best value.

The figures that are quoted for Wales are good, even though London is not included in the figures. We have a higher average than most of England. We are moving forward strongly to reach our targets. Therefore, all of these issues are positive for the people of Wales. I am delighted to support the Minister today. We are on course to provide better quality education for all the people of Wales. That is good for our children and good for our education system. It is a system of which we can be proud.

My greatest disappointment when I was campaigning in the 1997 General Election was how difficult it was to engage with schoolteachers in Montgomeryshire. It seemed to me then, and does now, that the desire to shape the lives of young people—which attracts people into the teaching profession—lies naturally with instinctive Conservative philosophy: a belief in a stable society and a belief in instilling into young people the initiative, creativity and confidence to go out into the world to be successful, and not to be dependent on the state.

The Conservative group in the Assembly is lucky to have Jonathan Morgan as our education spokesman. He is an able young man who has transformed our relationship as a party with the education sector in Wales. He has transformed our success in encouraging students to think Conservative again, and they are flocking to the Conservative banner in huge numbers in all of our universities. It is no surprise that Jonathan Morgan is leading us with such success when we compare his thinking and panache with the rather stale, old thinking displayed by the Minister.

Will you stop the disgraceful rumour that is going around the Chamber that Jonathan’s mother wrote your speech?

Yes, I will. That was a pity because I was just getting into full flow.

With craven obsequiousness, the Minister bows down before the Labour controlled councils that have so mismanaged our education system for decades. It comes to something when we have to look across Offa’s Dyke, because even David Blunkett is more in tune with common sense and the public mood than the Assembly’s Lib-Lab coalition.

I have been approached by many headteachers concerned about the funding of their schools. They do not fully understand the funding fog that surrounds the way in which this administration allocates its education budget. However, they know only too well that money is not flowing through to them at the rate that they were led to believe it would. Even more importantly, it is not flowing through to them at the rate they believe it is doing in England and Scotland. The concern that I would like to raise with the Minister today is that there is widespread acceptance that schools in Wales are not receiving the same degree of funding as schools in England. You may well try to argue, Minister, as you have done previously, that this is not true. However, you cannot argue that that is what headteachers in Powys believe and what professional publications are saying about poor funding in Wales. That will lead to teachers looking more to England for employment, and even more to Scotland, now that a generous settlement has been agreed for teachers north of Hadrian’s Wall.

Headteachers are deeply concerned about losing ambitious staff to England and have an even deeper concern about attracting new staff in their place. The failure of this Lib Lab coalition to match the direct funding mechanisms that are in place for schools in England is causing, and will continue to cause, huge damage to the education system in Wales, for which you will be responsible. Minister, go and talk to the headteachers in Powys. Go and talk to your opposite number at Westminster. Take your scissors to the ideological suspenders by which you dangle at the mercy of your local authority comrades. Give the money direct to schools. Give the power to teachers, governors and parents. Open your ears and listen, open your eyes and see, before it is too late and before any more damage is done.

Mae ansicrwydd wedi bod yn rhemp yn ein hysgolion ers sawl blwyddyn, ansicrwydd ynglŷn ag arian i gadw staff, i brynu adnoddau angenrheidiol ac i gynnal a chadw adeiladau, heb sôn am yr ansicrwydd sydd yn deillio o fiwrocratiaeth a newidiadau yn y cwricwlwm. Yr ydym yn byw mewn oes lle y mae ysgolion yn symud o un cyfnod o bryder i’r llall, gydag ychydig o seibiant rhyngddynt wrth i flaengareddau Blunkett gyrraedd i leddfu’r boen tan y tro nesaf. Yn Lloegr, mae Ofsted newydd feirniadu’r dryswch presennol ym myd addysg a achoswyd gan amrywiadau rhwng blaengareddau a cheisiadau. Mae’r dryswch hwnnw wedi dwysáu effeithiau niweidiol yr amrywiadau anesboniadwy hynny ar waith athrawon.

Er y gosodir targedau penodol i athrawon, nid oes safonau cenedlaethol cymaradwy y gellid eu defnyddio i benderfynu ar yr arian y dylid ei wario ar ein hysgolion. Nid oes mesur swyddogol, felly, o anghenion addysg. Rhaid i ysgolion faglu ymlaen, a cheisio cadw eu hanghenion beunyddiol rhag mynd i sefyllfa o argyfwng drwy ddefnyddio arian a dderbyniasant ar gyfer blaengaredd penodol. Mae pob grant a roddir i ysgolion ar gyfer blaengareddau Blunkett yn gyfle i ddefnyddio’r cyfryngau a chyhoeddi mewn llythrennau bras y bydd ysgolion yn derbyn rhagor o arian. Twyll yw hynny. Fodd bynnag, gallai dull syml, clir a theg o ddosbarthu arian roi sicrwydd cyllidol i ysgolion heb y balihw a’r lol a geir dan y drefn bresennol.

Clywsom lawer o sôn am y dryswch a berir gan y gwahaniaethau rhwng swm yr arian y pen a werir gan awdurdodau addysg lleol. Rhai o’r rhesymau dros y gwahaniaethau hynny yw teneurwydd poblogaeth, cyflwr ac oed adeiladau ysgolion ac ansawdd bywyd. Yn ôl y Comisiwn Archwilio, mae’r diffyg tryloywder yn y gyfundrefn bresennol o rannu arian addysg yn ei gwneud yn anodd i fynd i’r afael â’r problemau. Dywed adroddiad y Comisiwn fod angen herio’r gwahaniaethau hyn ond, yn anffodus, golyga’r diffyg tryloywder yn y gyfundrefn gyllido nad yw’r fath her yn bosibl o hyd.

Yn olaf, cyfeiriaf at yr angen i ailwampio’r gyfundrefn gyllido o’r cychwyn, gan ddechrau gyda fformwla Barnett a’r gyfran ohoni a ddaw i Gymru ar gyfer addysg. Mae dadansoddiad yr Athro David Reynolds yn y rhifyn cyfredol o Agenda yn dangos y gwahaniaeth sylweddol yn yr arian a werir yng Nghymru o’i gymharu â Lloegr. Pe byddai’r arian yn cael ei ddyrannu yn ôl poblogaeth ac anghenion yn hytrach nag ar sail poblogaeth yn unig, byddai’r cynnydd sydd ei angen yng Nghymru i sicrhau cyfran deg hyd yn oed yn uwch. Mae’n amlwg i Ofsted, yr Athro Reynolds, undebau athrawon a llawer ohonom yma ei bod yn hen bryd inni newid y modd y caiff addysg ei chyllido o’r gwraidd i’r brig. Fe’ch anogaf i gefnogi gwelliannau 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 ac 8. Dylai’r Cynulliad roi arweiniad ar y mater hwn.

I declare an interest as chair of the governing body of Meadowbank Special School. The Welsh Conservative Party trusts schools, school staff and governors. This process started nearly 10 years ago with the local management of schools, which was a significant and popular initiative. Scepticism was expressed then by the established interests, but it has brought a transformation in how schools are governed and their capacity to respond to change and to advance best practice and innovation.

In my experience on a governing body, schools sometimes have to use resources from their own reserves even when responding to school inspection action plans rather than turn to the LEA to fund essential safety work through the capital programme, for example. This local delegation can be crucial, not just to advancing educational standards but to meet central issues such as health and safety provision, as expressed in inspection teams’ reports. What we are discussing today is at the heart of education. It is not just a fancy additional provision.

Although we have not talked much about them, LEAs have an important role. As someone with experience of special educational needs, I would not downplay this. I would like to see LEAs advance and increase the standard of SEN provision and concentrate on what they can do on a regional basis to a level of excellence that we would all welcome. In the past I have expressed support for such things as the increase in mainstream provision so that special educational needs are met within mainstream schools. There have been good policy developments on this and I must acknowledge that some LEAs have been sensitive and constructive in what they have achieved in these areas.

The Assembly can express its commitment to education. We, apparently, have a Government that is determined to advance education on a triplicate pattern. We have heard the Prime Minister express this. Why should the Assembly be frustrated in its commitment to education by decisions taken by local authorities? If we declare that we want certain levels of resources to go to schools and to earmark a certain level of expenditure, why should that not go directly to schools? I cannot see how that compromises the role of LEAs and local authorities. It gives force to decisions taken in a devolved Assembly. Devolution has, after all, transformed the political governance of this country. This is an important point on which we should linger.

Devolution allows us to develop best practice in Wales, to make it common practice and, perhaps, set an example to the rest of the country. We hope that the Children’s Commissioner will also do this. As we now determine these things and we call the shots, devolution could also mean that we could be mired in institutionalised interest and not advance as other parts of the country do. A better education system in Wales than in England is not inevitable now that we have devolution. We have the ability to influence the way education develops in Wales, but we need to use those powers fully and we must be aware of the fact that developments in Wales may not go apace with those that may occur in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland. We must use our powers with imagination and determination. That means we cannot simply take the special pleading of particular parties and not go ahead with an exciting, innovative development. We must trust people, governors, staff and schools and give them the power to deliver higher standards in our schools and not leave that to local education authorities or to policies set in this august Chamber. Let us make devolution work to best effect and let us give more power to schools, headteachers and to the governing bodies.

I declare an interest as a Swansea councillor and a school governor. There is a strange feeling of unreality in participating in a debate where the Welsh Conservatives are calling for extra money to be spent on education. For those of us who were councillors in the 1980s and 1990s, the irony is acute. In those two decades, we saw an unprecedented squeeze on local government finance that led to real cuts in services.

I will not give way. I remember year after year of budget discussions that led to schools having to absorb pay rises, teachers taking early retirement or being made redundant, class sizes rising, headteachers relying on supermarkets for computers and vital building maintenance and capital work being allowed to slip further behind. If there is a crisis in education funding, its roots lie in those years of Tory parsimony. If there was a gap between England and Wales, it originated from decisions taken by Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales who had no roots in this country, and who, at least in one case, sent money back to the Treasury rather than invest it in children’s education. That kind of underspending is not easy to reverse, even in four years. However, a start has been made. As a school governor and a councillor today, the crisis is not—

No. The Tories will have a chance to respond afterwards. [Interruption.]

That is not to say that the Labour Government could not have done better; it could. However, the partnership Government of this Assembly is committed to education and to funding it properly. That is reflected in our budget. The Conservative mistrust of local democracy has not changed. They want us to run everything from the Assembly because they have Members and a profile in Cardiff Bay, but only a few councillors in Wales. That is not acceptable to the majority in this Chamber, who, although they may have reservations about the way that some councils are run, recognise that councillors are elected by local people and are accountable to them for their actions. That is why it is right that spending decisions, whether on education or social services, are made locally to take account of local circumstances. Our job is to provide the resources and the framework in which those decisions can be made and that is what we are doing. This motion also demonstrates that the Conservatives do not understand devolution. As a result of devolution, we do not have comparable spending patterns in England and Wales. Devolution is about Wales doing its own thing. That means aspiring to better quality services, higher levels of achievement, but also, greater freedom for local councils, which can help us achieve our targets through policy agreements and through the pressure that their electorate exerts on them.

Liberal Democrat councils piloted local management of schools. If we go further—as envisaged by the Tories—and pay money directly to schools, we will, effectively, have done away with LEAs. Wales has a disproportionate number of small schools, many of which are isolated. They would not be able to cope with the paperwork and the responsibility if LEA’s were abolished. The policy would penalise small, rural schools. The Assembly’s budget has allocated substantial additional resources for education. Nearly £300 million is available over three years to tackle the problems of inadequate buildings. There is also additional revenue funds of £87 million over three years for education, which we envisage will be used to reduce junior class sizes, improve the performance of pupils at key stage 3 and support under-performing schools. That is additional to the extra 5.6 per cent for local government next year.

As Jane Davidson said, DfEE allocates a large proportion of its funding to the Assembly by direct grant. We allocate nearly all our funding via the local government funding settlement. As has been said, provisional figures for 2000-01 on a pupil basis indicated that Welsh councils have budgeted to spend an average of £2,870 per pupil. The English average, excluding London, is lower than that at £2,840. Again, the Welsh average is higher than in eight of the 10 English regions. Those figures show that the charges made by the Conservatives and others are false and that there is no justification for the direct funding that is called for in this motion. As a Democrat, I ask you to oppose this motion.

All Members recognise that this issue is very important. I also commend the Minister on her honesty because she seemed to recognise that there was a fundamental difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives on this. Furthermore, inherent in Plaid Cymru’s comments, which were also honest, was a great difference of opinion. We trust schools and headteachers to spend their money in consultation with their staff, governors and parents. The Labour Party and Plaid Cymru do not.

However, what sticks in my craw is the Liberal Democrats’ attitude. I will deal, for a moment, with the least important part of the debate. The Liberal Democrats did the most extraordinary cartwheels. I thought that they would say nothing. They are better when they say nothing because we can then assume that they are ignorant on the issue. However, when they get up to say something, it is embarrassing in the extreme. When this was debated previously, the current Minister for Culture warmly supported payment going directly to schools through the conduit of the local education authorities. Apparently now, that is bad news. They have already made a U-turn today on the National Museums and Galleries of Wales—

I will give way in a moment.

They have made a U-turn today on the National Museums and Galleries of Wales, we should not be surprised that they are now making one on schools. I begin to see why they need these special advisers, but my only objection is that they are being paid for out of the public purse in addition to the money that the Liberal Democrat group gets in the Assembly.

I did not respond when a member of your group made a comment suggesting that I had no concern for my granny. Although, I consider that to be just as bad as any other comment. That phrase has strong moral implications. It is extremely rude and is unacceptable in this Chamber. However, I feel obliged to repeat what Jane Davidson said, that the mechanism this year is the same as last year’s, and therefore, I stand by my comments last year because they relate to this year in exactly the same way.

As I thought, that was a cartwheel dressed up as a policy with vision. However, the reality is there for everyone to see—they have done a total cartwheel. I am sorry that she has had a sense of humour bypass on the ‘selling her granny’ comment. She will find that that comment is in currency throughout the country and that most people would not take offence. However, that is a matter for the Presiding Officer —

I will not give way on that point, because I have a limited amount of time—

Presiding Officer, I believe that the indication that someone would sell his or her grandmother is as serious as calling someone a liar. [Laughter.]

The rest of us can try to speculate what Mike German’s granny would look like, and I do not think that he would take offence to my comment, but we will have to find that out later.

I will continue with the more serious issue in this debate relating to whether money should go directly to schools or to local education authorities. We received a letter that was addressed to a LEA suggesting, in a phrase that I found repugnant, that it was not the policy of the administration to give money to schools in plain, brown paper envelopes. Why not? Because we do not trust them or because the administration does not trust them? That attitude is very old Labour is it not? Perhaps, that is back in fashion after yesterday. We will have to ask its business manager whether that will have implications on how things are run here. I suspect that it is a case of ‘big brother’ or rather ‘big sister’ in the shape of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, and there is no offence intended by that remark.

However, this is about much more than semantics; it is about whether schools can be trusted to react to local needs. We know that the money is not going directly to schools. In Powys, for example, 75 per cent of the money either goes directly to schools or is flowed through to them. That is far less than the Vale of Glamorgan and, in fairness, Torfaen, which pass on 84 per cent.

Bu cyfeiriad y bore yma at safbwyntiau Cymdeithas y Prifathrawon Uwchradd a Chymdeithas Genedlaethol y Prifathrawon ynghylch taliadau uniongyrchol i ysgolion, ac y mae’r cyfeiriad hwnnw’n gywir. Fodd bynnag, rhaid i bawb ddeall bod yr undebau athrawon eraill yn cefnogi taliadau i ysgolion drwy awdurdodau addysg lleol ac mai hwy sydd yn cynrychioli i’r mwyafrif o bobl sy’n gweithio mewn addysg, mewn ysgolion.

That is a fair point and I have not tried to suggest that this is not a genuine debate, on a genuine issue. I recognise that Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party take a different stance from the Welsh Conservative Party and that there are, no doubt, individuals who support their viewpoints. However, it remains the case that most parents and schools—and I have the evidence here, certainly from Powys—would favour money going directly to the schools so that they can decide on their priorities. Surely, that is what devolution is about? Why does the administration not feel able to trust local schools to deal with their own money? That is at the knub of this issue. When Rosemary Butler was Secretary for Education and Children, the money was passed directly to the schools from local authorities. The Liberal Democrats approved of that, but they are now doing cartwheels. The administration needs to answer a simple question: why does it not trust headteachers and schools to make decisions that affect their own areas?