The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans.

We now move to item 8, which is the Welsh Conservatives debate on school funding. I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion. 

Motion NDM6975 Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the current 'school services' indicator based assessment (IBA) formula which calculates how much funding each local authority notionally needs to spend on its schools.

2. Recognises:

a) the lack of transparency in the IBA formula and subsequent local authority school funding decisions; and

b) the public confusion surrounding how schools are individually funded via local authorities, regional consortia and specific Welsh Government grants.

3.  Calls on the Welsh Government to develop a comprehensible means of evaluating and communicating the effectiveness of all streams of school funding, in particular;

a) their impact on the attainment and other outcomes for learners;

b) staff support and development;

c) school standards; and

d) delivery against the objectives of wider Welsh Government policy.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

There certainly has been a gear change this year in the complaints from schools and local authorities about underfunding. Councils are no longer content to let this Government get away with blaming everything on so-called austerity, and in fact they can't, because the funding floor, introduced by those Conservatives, means that Wales—. Here we get £1.20 for every £1 that is spent in England.

At the heart of the complaints we get from parents and school leaders, however, is what they are beginning to see—[Interruption.]—is what we are beginning to see as unfairness in funding between schools within the same local authority, let alone compared to other counties, combined with some ruefulness around new ways of funding, which don't always meet their priorities—priorities that often arise due to the demands of Government. Which is why we tabled this debate: to flush out the evidence behind the confusion and to encourage the Minister to tell us about the thinking that she has done to get us to into this position—a position where, it seems from the Government amendment, that she is content. Well, our constituents, school leaders, councils and parents—they're not content. This is why the Children, Young People and Education Committee is holding an inquiry into school funding—an inquiry that I hoped this debate would assist. And that is why I have to say I am very disappointed in the Government amendment to this debate. I was hoping that this would be about ideas, but to delete the entire motion and to say that everything is fine because of guidance, has completely missed the point that our constituents are struggling with school funding despite this guidance. So, we won't be supporting the amendment.

The first point fails to address the lack of transparency on what happens between calculating the indicator-based assessment figure and the actual spend on schools by local government. The regulations that provide the guidance were published in 2010, yet the frequently asked questions guide referred to in amendment 2 only appeared in September 2018, on the verge of us doing our committee investigation, I must add. And, as to their quality, the answer to the key question, 'How can I be certain my school's budget allocation is correct?' is, 'Contact your local authority'.

The third point of the amendment says that the guidance is aligned to 'Our national mission' policy document. And that may be so, but, yesterday, in the Estyn debate, Minister, you signally failed to address my points about audit and risk management of current evaluation processes, preferring to talk about the new ones that you would be introducing. So, I'm asking that question again today. I would like you to tell us exactly how you evaluate the effectiveness of the particular funding streams against your policy objectives and how those evaluation processes themselves are audited by your officials and external auditors to see if they're fit for purpose.

So, let's have a look at why our constituents are confused. Your notional figures already take into account what you're expecting in the block grant, Minister. In fact, Welsh Government often gets a little bit more than anticipated, hence the in-year supplementary budgets. For 2018-19, the year just ended, and with these observations in mind, the Government calculated that the notional gross budget for schools to be included in the revenue support grant was £2.56 billion, with a notional figure of £2.24 billion to be delegated to schools themselves. Schools actually got £2.16 billion. So why did local authorities think schools needed less than you thought they needed?

Carmarthenshire council felt it could spend £4 million less than you thought they needed. Pembrokeshire, where one in 10 primary schools and 37 per cent of secondary schools are in the red category, spent £1.6 million less on schools than you think they should. And this is before we get to the huge variation in how much local authorities retain centrally. In Powys, that's 25 per cent, and in Cardiff it's 10 per cent. And while there are very understandable reasons for that, related to rurality and sparsity, rurality and sparsity affect the schools themselves every bit as much as the provision of central services, so don't they need more too? You're beginning to see why I'm asking questions about your internal processes for evaluating the effectiveness of the implementations of your decisions. 

The Association of School and College Leaders blame the non-hypothecation of schools funding, as you know. What I see is an increasing tendency to bypass the RSG route because you don't trust councils enough to spend enough of what you do give them for schools, and you can't face the fight. But steering funding through centralised grants and consortia isn't going down well either. It's beginning to look like that established Welsh Government tactic of regionalisation by stealth. Consortia direct the spending of £230 million. Local authorities are top-slicing their school budgets to contribute towards that. The pupil development grant, which I think is a valuable idea, turns out not to have narrowed the attainment gap in the way we first thought. And that £139 million for school improvement—well, I'm not going to rehearse the whole of yesterday's debate; I made the point that the various forms of evaluation don't tally and don't result in persistently failing schools getting better. So, that £230 million seems to be an awful lot of money for the very little in achievement.

The ASCL has calculated that £450 million from the Government's education budget that could go to schools doesn't get to them through any route, whether to fulfil your own priorities or theirs. And you told us, Minister, in July, that you were looking into precisely this concern about money getting held up in local authorities or consortia and not getting to schools. The National Education Union Cymru says it's time to call time on the consortia. I think it's time you shared your findings of that work with us to see whether we agree with the NEU.

Now, I just want to come back to the PDG for a moment, because this is a good example, I think, of why I come back to the question of effectiveness, because we support the purpose of the PDG. However, the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods and Estyn have both expressed concerns about how the money has been targeted at low achievers and that our more able and talented continue to be held back by their low-income backgrounds. And the committee found something very similar. So, a letter to schools is not good enough. How do you plan to evidence more effective use of this money across the ability range, especially as more children will now be eligible for free school meals under the universal credit changes? We accept that the PDG can't be spent in a vacuum and, if there is incidental benefit for non-free-school-meal children, well, that's fine, but I think you have to ask, Minister, whether use of the PDG to take on teaching assistants is, in fact, starting to mask the fact that schools just don't have the core budget to employ staff at all.

Now, let's just compare two primary schools in one council area in my region, both in the green category. One has a high PDG requirement, a sufficiency of dedicated staff and a big thumbs up from Estyn, which it deserves. The other has a low PDG requirement, a similar number of students, but it is looking at laying off its dedicated staff and is asking parents to pay for equipment. It still gets a thumbs up from Estyn.

This is, in summary, what that school says, and I am summarising: 'There seems to be an assumption on the part of Government that parents will plug the funding shortfall. Our pupils and pupils in other similar schools are not as well resourced or provided for as schools in more deprived areas. This has led to'—and here's the list—'staff redundancy; a cut in spend and resources, premises, health and safety, so pupils are no longer getting support in class; no longer able to support a qualified teacher in our nursery class; no longer able to fund a qualified teacher for statutory PPA cover for all staff'. They're considering cutting school hours by half a day a week to give the teachers the PPA time to which they're legally entitled. 'Insufficient TA staff to meet the recommended ratios for foundation phase; no money for a properly trained well-being or attendance officer; senior management team has no management time; staff do not have sufficient resources to do their jobs; pupils no longer have support in the class; the fabric of the building and the ground is deteriorating; the caretaker is part-time; TA staff, if off sick, are rarely replaced in the short term; if teaching staff are off sick, they're not replaced in the first instance, and thereafter their work is split between other staff, increasing class sizes and causing a workload problem'—[Interruption.] Yes, thank you.

Suzy, I know that you're aware that the committee that you're a member of is undertaking a major inquiry into school funding, but I am a bit puzzled by this long catalogue of difficulties that you're referring to, because I'm wondering where you think the funding pressures that are inflicted on schools are actually coming from, when it is actually your Westminster Government that cut our grant.

I think I answered that question right at the beginning, because—and I'll come to this—it's too easy to blame the UK Government for this, because the problems I'm talking about—[Interruption.] I tell you what, if you let me come to the end of my speech, you will get answers. I'll take another intervention, if you like, to save a little bit of time on this.

In short, all this list that I've just mentioned to you is undermining this Government's aims and I don't think any of us wants that. While I accept that the new curriculum will need considerable professional development, I'm not sure that the extra millions you've found in-year for centrally funding continuous professional development wouldn't have been better spent—this is one example, Lynne—on helping schools this year, rather than a last-minute rush to spend it on preparing for areas of learning and experience, which aren't ready yet.

So, in short, there is a risk here that the policy objectives cannot be met because schools are underfunded by a local authority diversion of funds within the revenue support grant and failure to delegate, combined with direct funding, which misses out some schools altogether. As I said, it's too easy to pin this on the UK Government. The specific risks arise from what happens between the calculation of the IBA and what schools actually get from councils, as well as money being directed centrally for purposes that haven't yet made their mark in terms of effectiveness. And I think that, combined with the challenge of a new curriculum and new qualifications, is not encouraging people into the teaching profession either.

As I said at the beginning, the Welsh Government knows how much money it will be getting at the beginning of the process of deciding what the IBA is. You can't blame it, at that point, if the local authorities then start taking money out of what they've been expecting, because, as I said at the very beginning, Welsh Government actually ends up getting a little bit more from the UK Government than it was anticipating originally.

The final point I want to make, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that school funding guidance is nine years old. It's almost half the lifetime of this Assembly. The RSG funding formula, the IBA funding formula, school funding guidance—they all belong in history lessons themselves. And, in moving this motion, I ask you, Minister: what lessons have you learned from what our constituents are telling you?

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Minister for Education to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes that the current 'school services' Indicator Based Assessment (IBA) formulae model the authorities’ relative need to spend on school services, given the funding available and making assumptions around council tax and prioritisation of spending.

2. Welcomes the recently published ‘Funding for schools’ guide that clarifies arrangements for funding schools

3. Recognises that all Welsh Government funding and policy guidance to local authorities, education consortia and schools support delivery in line with the ‘Our National Mission’ action plan to raise standards, reduce the attainment gap, and deliver an education system that enjoys public confidence.

Amendment 1 moved.

I formally move.

Thank you. Paul Davies.

Thank you, Diprwy Lywydd, and I’m pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon.

We've heard from professionals in the field of education recently that they believe that the low levels of school funding in Wales are preventing them from teaching lessons to the standards that they require. There is a lack of resources, and, increasingly, the lack of a full staffing complement is undermining the ability of schools in Wales to ensure the very highest educational standards. Those aren't my words, but the words of NUT Wales, and the evidence shows that the current funding model is having a real impact on educational standards across Wales, particularly in my constituency.

Unfortunately, earlier this year, school category figures from the Welsh Government showed that Pembrokeshire has the highest percentage of primary schools needing the most support. According to those figures, 10.7 per cent of the authority’s primary schools were placed in the red category, compared to only 3.6 per cent the previous year. That’s a significant jump over just 12 months, and, as Suzy Davies said, by now, more than one in 10 primary schools in Pembrokeshire is in the red category and in need of additional support.

Now, while I accept that the funding model is not the only reason why Pembrokeshire faces a challenge in school standards, it is certainly clear that the assessments based on school services indicators are not meeting the needs of schools in my constituency. It’s clear that funding levels across different parts of Wales are inconsistent and that this inconsistency is impacting standards.

This inconsistency was raised last year by Michael Davies, head of Ysgol y Preseli in Crymych, who said that his school is looking at 'deeper cuts than ever before', including GCSE courses and partnerships with local colleges. He warned, and I quote:

'We've cut everything down to the bone—and now unfortunately we're having to look at cutting that most important resource of all, which is the teaching staff and support staff.'

So, perhaps, in responding to this debate this afternoon, the Minister could tell us what steps the Welsh Government has taken to get to grips with the specific concerns of headteachers in Pembrokeshire over the past year, and also tell us what further steps the Welsh Government will be taking to get to grips with this situation.

Now, in response to school categorisation statistics, the Minister has noted that the system has become more sophisticated over time. Indeed, perhaps this is what has happened, but, to many in Wales, the system appears to be too bureaucratic, and, as the statistics themselves demonstrate, in some parts of Wales the regional consortia are not providing for pupils in some areas.

Figures from the Association of School and College Leaders demonstrate that the school improvement consortium retains £40 million, which doesn't, therefore, reach our schools, at a time when schools are being underfunded. This is simply unacceptable. It isn’t right that vital funding is being kept back when schools across Wales have to cope with smaller budgets. Indeed, the National Association of Head Teachers in Wales has questioned whether the regional consortia are providing value for money, stating that, I quote, 'Over the past few years, schools have faced significant cuts, especially in terms of lower levels of delegated funds, as a result of multi-layered governance in Wales.'

Therefore, it’s vital that the Welsh Government now assesses the effectiveness of the regional consortia to see whether they are genuinely achieving the results that we need to see in schools across Wales. The question is whether these consortia add value to our education system or are they simply a waste of resources, creating an additional level of bureaucracy.

Dirprwy Lywydd, at the heart of this debate is the desire to see schools in Wales flourishing and we, on this side of the Siambr, believe that the Welsh Government needs to evaluate its funding formulae so that we can better understand outcomes for learners and value for money. The current situation makes it very difficult to discover how effective school funding is in Wales, and without understanding the effectiveness of expenditure, very few levers remain to the Welsh Government to achieve the improvements that are needed in the education system. Of course, we all have our own ideas about how to improve the system, such as direct funding of schools by the Welsh Government, and this would certainly lead to more funding reaching our classrooms.

Naturally, there are other challenges, not least of which is Wales's geography. Providing services in rural areas is expensive as compared to educating pupils in larger schools. We know that rural authorities have referred to school transport costs as something that is difficult to manage, and that issue doesn't arise in our urban areas. So, the Welsh Government must ensure that its funding models are rural-proofed to ensure that rural authorities aren't at a disadvantage in the funding they receive from the Welsh Government.

So, in concluding, Dirprwy Lywydd, our proposal calls on the Welsh Government to review its funding models and seek a better way to monitor the effectiveness of its expenditure so that the public can understand the way that individual schools are funded and so that we can achieve the best possible results for learners in Wales. And so, I urge Members to support this motion.

For this debate today to have real merit, it is worth establishing some fundamental parameters. The UK Government's sustained austerity agenda has led to a cut of nearly £1 billion to Wales's overall budget. This is real. Despite this, the Welsh Labour Government has worked hard to protect Welsh public services from the significant cuts and has taken direct action to prioritise key public services through local government, and that includes schools. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Welsh Labour Government does not fund schools directly. Each local authority in Wales is responsible for determining how much funding is allocated to its schools from the total resources available to it, and each local authority is expected to and does engage with its schools on budget matters in its budget forum.

The Welsh Labour Government has a clear and long-standing commitment to schools funding, despite the fact that by the end of the last Assembly, the block grant was, I repeat, 8 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. Welsh Labour in Government delivered on its commitment— [Interruption.] I will in a second—to protect spending on schools and made available an additional £106 million for Welsh schools. And improving that education system is a Welsh Labour priority. Yes.

I'm very grateful, and I just wanted to get across this point: that whatever the amount is that Welsh Government gets, it gives an indicative figure to councils. The schools don't get the figure that has been indicated to them, and that's the gap that I'm trying to identify rather than the initial funding.

Okay. I do actually acknowledge the fact that if we look at what's happening across the water in England, you will see that there is a huge issue in terms of funding for schools in England, and quite frankly, the gap that you're talking about is equitable across Wales. I won't take any lessons in regard to that, despite the rhetoric that has not always been the case for funding of schools in England. And I remember as a teacher, pre Assembly, and as a school governor, laying off teachers, and there is no doubt that all our public sector is feeling passported financial strain. So, I would ask that we do shake that magic money tree for Wales.

The spending priorities outlined in the Conservative alternative budget for the 2011 Assembly elections would have led to a 12 per cent cut in the Welsh education budget in the last Assembly. Had that been enacted, that would have been the equivalent of nearly 10,000 teachers losing their jobs—[Interruption.] I really haven't got time, I'm afraid—cuts to our workforce and to the budget that would have had catastrophic impact on educational outcomes for our young people. Now, either the Welsh Conservatives were playing politics or they were deadly serious in their belief that savaging teaching staff numbers and increasing class sizes to 50 or 60 pupils would help lift standards in Welsh education. So, beyond a nostalgic and half-baked notion that somehow reintroducing grammar schools and selection in Wales would see us catapulting up the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings, the Welsh Conservatives, and, I believe, UKIP, have shown no appetite to do any of the hard graft, the hard policy work that would constitute an alternative to the vision that has been laid out over the last four years and as recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

So, let's compare and contrast. The Tory UK Government have slashed funding—my earlier point— in every area of education, from early years to schools to further and adult education, with billions of pounds lost since they first came to office in spring 2010. The academy schools and the rife selection process that goes on openly and behind closed doors is not the model that we wish to see in Wales. Since 2015, the Tories have cut, and I will say this, £2.7 billion from school budgets in England. So, I am sorry, but I won't take any lessons in that regard. An analysis of figures produced by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that school budgets are £1.7 billion lower in real terms than they were five years ago.

Labour in Wales has ambition for our young people, and the Labour Party in Wales will deliver for our young people. As the OECD has stated, though, it will be equitably, it will be inclusively, and it will be without selection.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, especially as the principal speaker from our benches opened the debate in such an eloquent way, highlighting the challenges that many of the schools across Wales face. I don't underestimate the challenges that the Cabinet Secretary/Minister now, sorry, faces in the budget discussions that she faces within Government. But, it is a fact that, with the new funding floor that is available to the Welsh Government, for every £1 that comes into Wales, £1.20 is—

Will you take an intervention on that?

I will gladly take the intervention.

The figure is wrong and it shows a lack of understanding of how Wales is funded. If you look at identifiable and non-identifiable funding, they show that the figure coming to Wales is significantly lower than that and is lower than is going to London. So, peddling this 120p for every 100p going to England is just not true.

It is true. In fact, the current First Minister when he was finance Minister acknowledged that, he did. One thing we all know is: Wales, if it went independent, would be seriously underfunded. We achieve far greater results by being part of the United Kingdom, as the population shows time and time again. [Interruption.]—I've taken one intervention, I'd like to make some progress in my contribution. 

What is really critical to understand here is that, obviously, some of these funding issues—. We do know that there's less money in the pot overall, because when the Government came in in 2010, the Chief Secretary of the Labour Government left a note that said all the money had gone. So, there were no magic money trees when we came in. We kept a growing economy with record employment rates and investment in public services. But what happened here in the Assembly was quite clear, the Government has bailed out the health boards time and time again and has not had budget responsibility within the health boards, and yet education and other key public services have suffered because of that. It's quite clear, the three-year budget rule that was brought in by the finance Secretary when he was finance Secretary was to balance the budgets, and yet, each time, education has suffered at the hands of the inexperience and incompetence, I would suggest, in some of the health boards in managing their own budget pressures. That's what this Government needs to get a handle on. 

It is a fact that many, many school environments are so different the length and breadth of Wales, and that is a challenge for local authorities to manage. I can remember visiting Roath primary school in my own region, where the headteacher was telling me in excess of 30 languages are spoken in that primary school. You can then go to a small rural primary school where, obviously, the roll might only be 20, 30, or 40 even, and yet you're trying to deliver a curriculum and offer life chances to those young people. So, we have to reflect on the fact that the variety of schools across Wales demands different levels of funding. I don't underestimate those challenges. 

But, when an union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, come forward and highlight the figures that they highlighted recently, that surely warrants and merits a debate, and that's what we're having here this afternoon. When you look at the figures of the retained money, £450-odd million not making it to the classroom, we as politicians surely have to ask the question, 'Why that total?' Now, I fully accept that certain services are best delivered by the local authority rather than broken up, transport's a good example of that, it is, then, especially in a rural location. Should a small school of 30 or 40 pupils be dealing with trying to tie up transport? Clearly, they wouldn't have the presence in the market to get the best deal possible. But £450 million is a fair chunk of money out of a £2.5 billion budget that's retained by local authorities. Surely, there is more pressure that can be brought to bear to bring those numbers down, especially when you have some authorities such as Cardiff, for example, which is retaining 10 per cent of the money before it hits the classroom as opposed to other local authorities, the worst performing ones, I would suggest, which are retaining maybe 25 per cent or 30 per cent of that money. That is a real debate to had, and I remember the predecessor to the current Minister, Leighton Andrews, obviously bringing a lot of pressure to bear on that, and some success was had.

So, this debate is about actually trying to address the concerns that we as Assembly Members time and time again face with our constituents, trying to understand the hypothecated, the unhypothecated, why is that teacher being laid off, why hasn't that school room been updated, why haven't the computer programmes been updated, et cetera, when we're told time and time again there are supposedly record sums of money going in. We know there's a new curriculum coming before us in 2021 as well, which will require investment, but, what we do know over 20 years of Labour-led Government here in Wales, regrettably, on the international league table, we have failed to perform as a country. One of the key indicators surely has to be the ability to deliver money into the classrooms to increase teacher participation levels in good-quality training courses and, above all, get an environment that our learners can thrive in. That is something that we all share—that aspiration for our schools here in Wales. Regrettably, because of the mismanagement from Welsh Labour in Government—[Interruption.] The clock is ticking. Because of the mismanagement of Labour in government, I go back to my opening remark, we have seen time and time again health boards bailed out when they've gone massively over budget, and local education authorities having to pull back their spending because they've been robbed of any additional money that might come in consequentials that come down from the M4. So, this debate is timely, it is pertinent, and I hope the Assembly will support it.

First of all, I would like to praise our teachers and the staff in our schools for their ongoing commitment to the increasingly difficult task of teaching our pupils. They work under very specific limitations in terms of a lack of resource and funding and far too much intervention in their day-to-day activities. The profession is under huge pressure at the moment, and we need to thank them for continuing to try and inspire our children and young people in the classroom, which is, after all, their main task, but the context is a challenging one.

The serious funding crisis facing schools across Wales is having a detrimental impact on the education of our young people, and this is highlighted in the report ‘Cut to the Bone?’: £324 less is spent in real terms per pupil as compared to nine years ago, and, according to the Government itself, two fifths of schools in Wales are in deficit in terms of their budgets.

The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers quotes data on the number of teachers, noting that there's been a reduction of 1,416, namely 5.6 per cent in the number of teachers, and often these are experienced teachers who have left the profession prematurely as a result of cuts.

We know that the cake is getting smaller as a result of Tory austerity policies, and it's interesting to note, therefore, that the motion before us today does detail one specific aspect of school funding. Plaid Cymru does agree that there is a lack of transparency and some confusion regarding the formula, and we also agree that we need to look at the efficiency of all the funding streams for schools and perhaps we need to create a single funding stream and to agree as to how we assess success.

What is disappointing is that the Government, through its amendment, seem to think that everything is fine. Well, I can tell you that everything is not fine. We know that the problem starts with the Conservatives in London and the ideological attempt to undermine our public services through their austerity policies. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Tories in Wales actually look at the minutiae, ignoring the elephant in the room, namely that the public funding pot generally is getting smaller and that we need to invest rather than cut our public services. But I would also argue that, yes, the cake needs to be bigger in the first place, but we also need to portion it in a way that accords better with some of the Government’s main strategies in Wales. The preventative services aren't given a sufficient share of Government funding, and what better example of a preventative service than education? We need to look in a far more holistic manner at the budget as a whole and to move away from these crude allocations. We need more appropriate funding for services that prevent problems from developing.

And what about the slice of the cake actually provided for education? Is there enough of that going to our schools, and what can be done to ensure that the funding is spent appropriately? I do very much hope that the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee can feed into that discussion.

The job of this Government is to look long and hard at the evidence, to come to conclusions, and to take action as a result. The amendments, such as the one tabled today, do nothing to help anyone. We need to listen to what the profession is telling us. There are some who are asking whether the consortia are absorbing too much of the funds, whether there is duplication of services across the various layers involved. Do we need three-year budgeting? There is concern that funding provided through grants can vary from year to year and create uncertainty and create a patchy approach that doesn't reflect the local priorities on all occasions, that there’s a bureaucratic burden and that far too large a proportion of them is used for tracking and monitoring and so on and so forth. I could expand on those specific issues that need to be addressed, and I look forward to contributing to the work of the committee in contributing to those efforts.

The view that 'everything in the garden is rosy' doesn't strike a chord, and it's another case of this Government burying its head in the sand whilst our schools are creaking and our young people are being let down.

The Welsh Government formula for funding schools in Wales is not fit for purpose. As a result, school leaders and stakeholders have said that chronic insufficient funding has put schools under serious financial pressure. The system is flawed, with little transparency, coherency and consistency. The danger signals have been apparent for some time. Last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced a report, and this report argued that differences in local funding models were causing concerns about unequal treatment of schools in similar circumstances. According to the OECD, this lack of a level playing field in school funding could affect the ability of schools to implement the new curriculum. They went on to say that the Welsh Government should consider reviewing the school funding model if they wish to realise its ambition for equity and education and student well-being. The Welsh Government is no stranger to inequitable funding and education. There is a spending gap per pupil of nearly £700 between England and Wales, but this spending gap is replicated between local authorities in Wales, thanks to this flawed funding formula. The leader of the Vale of Glamorgan Council recently highlighted the fact that the spending per pupil in his local authority was £600 below the Welsh average. Every child and young person in Wales should receive the same basic level of investment in their future. It cannot be right that there exists a postcode lottery in school funding in Wales.

The NAHT, the National Association of Head Teachers, has also said, in their quote,

'It is time for an honest, open and mature debate about school budgets in Wales'.

They went on to say:

'School leaders simply don't know if there is enough money in the school system'.

And also they say:

'A national audit is required and we need to see an approach to school funding that is more equitable and transparent'.

Only last week, the Association of School and College Leaders Cymru wrote to the Minister for Education. In this letter, they expressed their frustration and dismay about the severe funding crisis in Welsh schools and the detrimental effect it is having on young pupils and people. They highlighted the effect the funding crisis is having on the Welsh Government action plan, and they quote 'Education in Wales: Our national mission'. The consequences, they say, can be seen in rising class sizes, a decrease in the number of support staff, and the cutting of many activities outside the compulsory curriculum. But they raised one other matter of significant concern, namely the amount of school funding that never reaches the chalk face. It cannot be right that some £450 million of education funding is retained by local authorities or regional consortia. We need a system that funds schools directly and that gives greater spending control to teachers. [Interruption.] Yes, go on.

Do you recognise the value or worth of the education improvement work that the education consortia carry out across Wales or not?

Well, I can't—. That's a different—. We are talking about the school funding gap. Leave the consortia out of it because we are worried about school funding here. We need a system that funds schools directly—that's what I'm saying—not consortia, one that gives greater spending control to teachers, parents and governors, directing more money to the classrooms rather than somewhere else.

Deputy Presiding Officer, if we are to get a fairer and more equitable division of resources, we need a new funding formula. It is accepted across the education sector that the current system is inadequate. The OECD, local authorities, professional bodies and stakeholders all recognise this. Sadly, it is only the Welsh Government that doesn't. I ask the Minister to review the system of school funding to ensure that every child gets the high-quality education they deserve.

And finally, Minister, if we are in power, there will be three areas we'll put money into more efficiently and effectively. One is religious education on anti-Semitism and an understanding of faith and belief and no extremism among the children. And funding for sports grounds; children's health is paramount. And finally, classes on music, which should be funded from this side of the Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Education, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Conservatives for tabling the debate and can I thank Members for speaking in the debate? Whilst I would not necessarily agree with what Members on the Conservative benches or the Plaid Cymru benches have said, can I just say how grateful I am that they are interested enough in Welsh education to participate? Deputy Presiding Officer, it hasn't passed my attention that this is the second day running where we've had important education debates and the UKIP Members have not contributed once.

Llywydd, I would argue that there are two issues being debated here this afternoon. The first, based on the Conservative motion, is a discussion on the method through which we in Wales fund schools, and the second, more generally, is about the squeeze on public service funding and school budgets, and I will take these two points in turn.

To address the point that Suzy Davies raised about auditing, I have to say that every single Welsh Government initiative, such as the PDG or the foundation phase, is subject to independent academic review. With regard to the financial resources associated with those grants, those are audited on a yearly basis, whether those are grants given to local authorities or whether they're grants given to the regional consortia, and we are consistently looking to improve that. So, this year, for instance, we had a new outcomes focus for all that grant money.

If I could move on, the Conservative motion mostly focuses on the IBA formula and school funding mechanisms. They talk about a lack of transparency, yet I note that the motion fails to put forward any solutions or what they would do differently. And, in fact, from the contributions from some of the Conservative Members here today, there seems to be a disagreement on how they approach this subject. Suzy Davies doesn't want me to spend money on professional learning for teachers, but Andrew R.T. Davies recognises that that's really valuable spending. Oscar—Mohammad Asghar says that all money should be given to schools, but Andrew R.T. Davies, again, recognises that, in some cases, such as transport or specialist SEN services, some services are better delivered on a regional or local authority basis.

Let's be absolutely clear: the IBA is agreed by the distribution sub-group, and before anybody says that this is a stitch-up against rural local authorities, that sub-group contains representatives from Gwynedd, Powys, Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan. The data used to calculate the IBA is updated every single year, and the data sets included in the IBA are pupil numbers, free-school-meal eligibility and sparsity, and if the Tories don't agree with any of those data sets, they should say which ones they don't agree with. Nonetheless, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will be honest, I accept and agree that how schools are funded can be confusing. Funding formulas are, by their very nature, generally complex beasts. That's exactly why I asked my officials to make further efforts in publishing details explaining how schools are funded. And as Suzy Davies referenced, a new page was published in September on the Welsh Government website, which sets out exactly how schools are funded. However, I recognise that there is a need to keep matters under review and to explore whether current systems are working optimally. And I and the local government Minister have made it very clear that we have no objections to changes to the formula. The local government distribution sub-group have identified education as a work stream to explore alternative methods of establishing the IBA, and the Welsh Government officials are supporting this work.

But, Deputy Presiding Officer, Members also need to be cautious in what they are calling for. People have talked today about a new school funding formula, a national one. I understand these calls, but we have to face the reality: a new funding formula runs the risk of significant instability in school funding. Across the border, the Conservatives have themselves decided to introduce a new national funding formula, and Members in this Chamber will remember the chaos that it caused, including a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament rebelling against the plans. Now, I will admit that, in this day and age, Conservative MPs voting against their own Government isn't that extraordinary, but it is worth noting, nonetheless.

So, let's be clear here: yes, a new funding formula would mean that there would be some winners, but there would also be losers, and I don't see anybody in this Chamber standing up to offer up any of their schools as losers. Also, as Andrew R.T. Davies rightly identified, would a single national funding formula truly adequately reflect the diversity of the Welsh education provision—small, rural schools; large, urban schools with a highly diverse population; schools that specialise in special educational needs? These are complex issues that I think would be very, very, very difficult to encapsulate in a single national funding formula, and it would also radically change the role of local education authorities and directly elected councillors in their role in education. And I can tell you that direct funding of schools is not supported by the Conservative leader of Monmouthshire council and it's certainly not supported by leaders such as Ellen ap Gwynn in Ceredigion. So, let's be clear what a national funding formula actually means for local education authorities and the role of locally elected councillors. Maybe that's what the Tories want, but they should say that out loud.

Deputy Presiding Officer, on the whole, it's not formulas, it's not the RSG or, indeed, hypothecated grants that parents and teachers spend their time talking about to me. They talk to me about their dismay due to the cuts inflicted over a sustained period of austerity, and those cuts, let's be clear, have seen nearly £1 billion taken out of Wales's budget overall. 

Now, with regard to ASCL, and the letter from ASCL, which has been mentioned several times in the Chamber this afternoon, I take very seriously what ASCL have to say. I don't recognise the figure of £450 million. Indeed, they have acknowledged to me and my officials that that figure includes LEA SEN services and it does include school transport, and I'm sure that none of us would agree that that is money that does not need to be spent. But my officials will sit down with ASCL and talk further, because it would be curious, would it not, if those local authorities and individual schools are under such pressure—and I don't say that they're not—it would be a curious decision indeed to duplicate services? Because after all, let's remember, it is the LEAs that are the main stakeholders in the regional consortia, so why would an LEA, which wants to prioritise funding for its schools, decide to spend money duplicating a service that the regional consortia could deliver and they're stakeholders of that regional consortia? It would be a very curious situation indeed, wouldn't it? It would be rather perverse. And that's why my officials will be sitting down with ASCL this week to understand where those concerns are coming from.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I need to finish, if you don't mind, Andrew.

I recognise, when I go out to schools, I see the pressure our teachers are under—of course I do. But I also very clearly see their commitment, their passion and their drive to get the best possible outcomes for the children that they teach. But I recognise that they need further support to match their commitment, and that's why I welcome the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee on school funding, and I look forward to receiving that report. That's why this Government is delivering the biggest single investment in teachers since devolution, opposed today by Suzy Davies, and welcomed, it should be said, by our teaching union. That's why we're putting extra money into the pupil development grant, that's why we're reducing class sizes, and that's why we're supporting small and rural schools, just to name three of the initiatives. All of those things are focused on raising standards and reducing the attainment gap, and I will never apologise for trying to do any of that.

Can I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, this debate actually today, Minister, is indeed very timely. Many of our schools now are having to take drastic decisions. I don't think she's listening, but there we go. This is particularly true in Conwy County Borough Council, where this year alone schools are on a real terms cut of over 7.6 per cent, equating to over £400,000 at some secondary schools. Now, I do hope the Minister's aware of this letter that's doing the rounds, and it's gone home to every single parent within the schools in Conwy, and it's been signed off by seven headteachers of the secondary schools. They are saying it is make or break time for our schools. The financial situation has become critical. They are having to consider larger class sizes, fewer teachers; school buildings falling into disrepair; reduction in support for additional learning needs and well-being needs; cuts in teaching assistants and support staff; outdated IT; fewer trips and after-school activities; and grants being used to support the core provision of our schools.

This situation has been echoed by other school leaders who have persistently raised concerns that targeted funding such as the PDG is masking the inadequacy of, and is filling gaps in, core budgets. For example, the Association of School and College Leaders have stated that core budgets are no longer sufficient to maintain the levels of expert staffing, maintain school buildings and purchase the necessary equipment required to ensure that all our schools are able to deliver the best possible education for the young people of Wales. Using the current school services indicator-based assessment—IBA—formula, local authorities determine their relative need and how much spending should be allocated to schools. However, not all local authorities are providing schools with the amount of funding specified in the IBA, and that is something that you should be looking at. For example, while the 2018-19 gross schools expenditure was budgeted at £2.56 billion, the funding actually delegated to schools was £2.16 billion—less than the IBA figure of £2.42 billion. The pupil spend in Wales, as Mohammad here has pointed out, is nearly £700 less than in England, with a shortfall of £283 million. Despite the Welsh Government setting a target for 85 per cent of all school funding to go directly to schools in 2012, the target has never been achieved at an all-Wales level.

The seriousness of the situation is apparent when considering that the association—[Interruption.] No, I've only got four minutes.

The Association of School and College Leaders Cymru estimate that, of the £2.5 billion allocated for schools in the education budget, al least £450 million is not getting to schools because it is retained by local authorities or regional consortia. As such, it is reasonable to ask what is going on and whether the funding is being used effectively.

Suzy Davies is quite correct to dispel the argument that this is just down to austerity. Many schools are falling in the national school categorisation system, including one from—[Interruption.] Allow me to finish. I've only got four minutes.

The negative impact this is having on pupils is apparent when considering the gap between eligible-for-free-school-meal pupils and non-EFSM pupils' attainment widened between 2016 and 2017. Paul Davies eloquently described well how schools in his constituency are suffering as a direct result of these funding issues. He's also correct to point out the need to be reviewing the actual regional consortia and the expenses and bureaucracy that they add. I go around my schools, I go around and speak to my headteachers, and I can tell you what you're doing is not working. The regional consortium in itself is an over-burdensome, bureaucratic nightmare that is taking money away from our schools. I ask you, Minister, please, if nothing else, review the workings of the regional consortia. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. I'm pleased that Members have heeded the warning. Thank you, I heard that. So, I defer the voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.