---

Schools Funding (Cornwall)

I accept the point that poverty does not exist only in urban areas and that there is rural poverty. I also accept that there is a need for a review of the way in which money is distributed to local authorities and to schools. My point is that it is an ongoing process; no conclusion has been reached, and the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and no doubt part of the point of the debate, are an attempt to influence the outcome of that review. The outcome is not decided yet, and he needs to continue to make his case. Let me address specifically some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about primary school closures in his constituency and in Cornwall more generally. Obviously, the closure of a school can be controversial, and we have tried to ensure that the proposer of such action is required under legislation to undertake a public consultation. From May 2007, new arrangements for local decision making took effect, and they must be followed whenever a change in school provision is suggested. However, the provision of schools and schools places in an area is ultimately a decision for local authorities, not the Government. Councils have primary responsibility for school-place planning, and a duty to secure the best standards for all pupils. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the good standards in many of Cornwall's schools, notwithstanding the pressures on finances and resources that some of them feel they are under. The council has responsibility for determining the most appropriate organisation in an area. In terms of protecting rural schools, there is money within the dedicated schools grant for sparsity, which enables us to target extra spending. Cornwall received £5.44 million in its schools settlement for sparsity. We fully expect—this is perhaps one concrete thing that I can say to the hon. Gentleman—the sparsity factor to be included in the new formula, whatever that is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might make a suggestion about how that sparsity factor is worked out, and whether it could be done so more advantageously. Importantly, the sparsity factor will remain. The Government introduced a presumption against school closure 10 years ago. Statutory guidance now requires decision makers to have regard to that presumption, and to take account of other factors when considering the future of rural schools. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point about schools having an impact on the community and on local businesses, rather than being solely an education matter. Of course, the presumption against school closures does not prohibit closures, and the proper statutory process has to be followed. As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell pointed out, there are surplus places in Cornwall, and that is an issue for the council to address. My information from the Department suggests that there are 4,450 surplus primary school places in Cornwall, which is 11 per cent. of the total capacity, so there is a significant difficulty, irrespective of the funding regime. However, I take the point that sometimes such decisions should not be made only on the basis of place numbers but should take other factors into account.