'Free' school meals leave schools facing funding crisis

Ever since its announcement at last year's Liberal Democrat party conference, the government's decision to grant every child aged 5-7 a free school meal has been dogged by controversy.

Aside from it being questionable that in excess of £600million of taxpayers' cash should be spent feeding the offspring of very affluent families (children from the poorest families have long received free school meals, irrespective of the child's age), this politically motivated gimmick has been beset with eminently foreseeable difficulties from day one.

From councils across the country (though thankfully not in Stockton) having to dip into their own education budgets to pay for kitchen improvements (the grant from central government proving insufficient) to thousands of schools unlikely to have the work completed by the first week of term in September, the implementation of the policy has been shambolic. So much so, faced with the number of schools who will be forced to provide meals cooked off-site and then re-heated, or even unable to provide a hot meal at all, the government has quietly dropped the obligation on schools to provide a hot meal.

But whilst these issues could be argued to be temporary, and relatively easily remedied, one enduring problem with the policy will continue to impact schools for years to come.

One of the Lib Dem's proudest - dare I say rightly so - achievements in government is the introduction of the Pupil Premium.

The Pupil Premium is additional funding given to publicly funded schools throughout England to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils hailing from the poorest families. During the financial year 2014/15, primary schools will receive an additional £1,300 for each eligible child. These payments soon add up to sizeable sums of money.

Here in the borough of Stockton on Tees, our primary schools registered anywhere up to 74.1% of pupils being eligible for the Pupil Premium - nearly three times the national average. Rosebrook Primary School, to give but one example, received £203,942 in 2013/14 (when the premium was set at just £953 per pupil).

The difficulty such schools face going forward is that eligibility to receive the pupil premium is based on whether a child has been eligible for free school meals at any point during the past 6 years. Given all pupils aged 5-7 will now automatically receive a free meal, their parents will no longer have to apply and prove their eligibility to the local authority, and by extension the school.

The upshot of this is that primary schools throughout the country will not necessarily know which or how many of their Year 1 pupils are eligible for free school meals, and without any previous record of them having been eligible, thereby leaving the school unable to apply for the additional pupil premium for those otherwise eligible pupils. This could easily see primary schools losing tens of thousands of pounds of additional funding.

Upon asking the question of Stockton Council last week, I was pleased to hear that the council has been working with the governing bodies of local schools to encourage parents to still register their eligibility for free school meals and the pupil premium irrespective of the fact their child(ren) will receive a free meal nevertheless. Whilst it's pleasing the council is ostensibly ahead of the curve on this issue, it is ludicrous they have been put in this position in the first place.

Councillors from all across the country will be aware of eligible families who haven't previously registered for free school meals, be it through ignorance of their eligibility or embarrassment at having to do so. Indeed, this was used as one of the justifications for the expansion of free school meals to all infants.

But how many more families will fall into this category when there is no tangible financial benefit to them in them doing so? It seems inevitable that we will see the number of infants recorded as eligible for the Pupil Premium fall as a direct consequence of the new free school meal policy.

It is impossible to say whether this looming crisis was foreseen by the government or simply overlooked, although given I wrote a blog last September highlighting the problem (here) it simply isn't plausible to claim nobody in government saw this coming.

What seems for more likely is that George Osborne did indeed anticipate these difficulties but saw reduced Pupil Premium payments to schools as a means of contributing to the cost of the additional free school meals. Once again it seems the Conservative part of the government is happy to take away from the poorest in society to the benefit of their more affluent core vote.

If you have children attending any publicly funded school within Stockton Borough, you can check eligibility and register for free school meals / the pupil premium online here or by ringing the Free School Meals Team on 01642 526606.

It can bully its planning committee, but Stockton Council can't bully me

On 11:19 on Christmas Eve I received an e-mail (below) from Stockton Council's legal services department notifying me that they were investigating a complaint that I had breached the Members Code of Conduct by highlighting the council's attempts to bully and manipulate those councillors who sit on its planning committee (see my blog post here).

Back in June, Stockton Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly, and somewhat surprisingly, to reject a controversial application to build 159 properties on land at Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe.

As is now par for the course, the developer lodged an appeal whilst simultaneously submitting another planning application which was virtually identical to their previous failed bid.

The week before the committee was due to hear the second planning application, back in November, officers at Stockton Council circulated a legal brief to members of the planning committee which advised if councillors were to approve the revised application it "would probably result in the withdrawal of the appeal". Not only that, it claimed it would make "good sense" to approve the application in order to "extricate the council from the very difficult position it now faces". (read the report in the Evening Gazette here).

Now, there are only two possible reasons for council officers circulating the legal opinion it its entirety as they did - a move they concede was "unusual" and which they admit they couldn't give another single example of when they had done likewise. It was either a display of quite breath-taking incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the result of the forthcoming vote.

I had no hesitation in publishing the legal brief in its entirety, and would do so again without a moment's thought.  Too many council officers seem to have forgotten that the only reason they have a job at all is to serve the residents of the borough. To my mind, such a job description does not include trying to rig votes in favour of wealthy landowners and developers contrary to the wishes of residents.

But what irked me the most about the letter I received last month regarding the investigation was not its content - which hardly came as a surprise - it was the timing.

Nearly 7 weeks had elapsed since I published the brief without a single word from the council that any investigation would take place, or was even being considered. Then, on Christmas Eve of all days, and at the instigation of David Bond, the council's Director of Law and Democracy, the letter was e-mailed to me.

Not only that, when I replied to the e-mail just 10 minutes later, both David Bond and Jonathan Nertney - the principal solicitor who signed the letter - were both out of the office until the new year, at least according to the automated messages I received back.

Now, I suppose it's possible sending me the letter by e-mail was Jonathan's last act of the day before, very quickly, setting his out-of-office and skipping out of the office? Or perhaps he and/or David Bond are so utterly spiteful that they thought it a good idea to delay sending it until Christmas Eve, irrespective of the fact they weren't even working that day? Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Stockton Council might have been successful in its bullying of the planning committee - the revised application being approved in November as officers wished (see here) - but they are making an huge mistake if they think they can bully me in the same way.

I will always stand up for residents, acting in their best interests, saying what they want me to say and doing what they want me to do. If Stockton Council have a problem with that, then they will just have to find a way to learn to live with their disappointment.

Changes to library opening hours throughout Stockton Borough

Following on from Stockton Council's decision in May to cut library provision across the borough, a review of the borough's library services has now been completed and the opening hours at five community libraries will change from Monday 6th January as follows:

Fairfield Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	10-12

 

Egglescliffe Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	2-7	Closed	Closed

 

Roseworth Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-4
New	1-7	9.30-3	Closed	9.30-3	Closed	Closed

 

Thornaby Library (Westbury Street)

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

At Billingham (Bedale Avenue) Library, opening hours will also reduce whilst the new Billingham Central Library is constructed in the town centre.  The pattern of opening will be as follows:

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

In addition, the current Sunday openings at Stockton and Thornaby Central Libraries will be discontinued from Sunday 22nd December – all other opening times at these libraries will be unaffected.  Ingleby Barwick Library will remain open on Sundays as normal, from 11am to 4pm.

Although the cuts are extremely disappointing, we have worked hard to ensure they are not as bad as first feared.  Our libraries are without exception well used and relied upon by very many people, and we will continue to campaign to prevent any further cuts to these vital services.

How Stockton Council is trying to manipulate its own planning committee

Yesterday evening, I was passed some papers evidencing how officers at Stockton Council are shamelessly attempting to influence the way elected councillors vote at next week's planning committee.

In June this year, Taylor Wimpey had an application to build 159 homes on Urlay Nook Road, Eaglescliffe overwhelmingly rejected by the council's planning committee, by some 9 votes to 2, contrary to the recommendation of council planning officers.

Predictably, Taylor Wimpey submitted an appeal against the decision (as reported in the Northern Echo here). In addition, Taylor Wimpey simultaneously submitted a near identical planning application for the same site, which is due to be determined by the planning committee next week.

The application is once again recommended for approval by council officers (you can find their report here). But officers couldn't leave it at that and run the risk of councillors again heeding residents' concerns and refusing the application for a second time; they decided to try and stack the deck in the developer's favour.

This week, council officers circulated to members of the planning committee a legal brief ostensibly relating to the appeal on Urlay Nook (which isn't due to be heard for some months yet). This document in essence states the council has no realistic prospect of winning the appeal and suggests the planning committee can "extricate the council from the very difficult situation it now faces" by approving the application at next week's committee meeting.

Not only that, the brief was circulated to members with a covering note saying that councillors are not allowed to discuss this matter with anybody outside of the planning committee and warned them (threatened them?) that to do so would be a breach of the Members Code of Conduct. Furthermore, members were told they are not even able to refer to the legal brief in next week's committee meeting; any discussion would need to take place in camera (i.e. in secret).

Well, so what?

The only possible explanation for this brief having been circulated to members prior to the planning committee meeting next week is that it is a deliberate and downright grubby attempt to unduly influence your elected representatives, to cajole them to approve the planning application contrary to common sense and the wishes of residents.

To my mind the public have an absolute right to know about such underhand manipulation of the planning committee, whatever hollow protests the council may come out with over the coming days. If I am subsequently found to have breached the code of conduct by putting this into the public domain then fine; a slap on the wrists is a price worth paying every single time to shine a little light on the way Stockton Council goes about its business.

The papers circulated to members of the planning committee can be found below. Share them with your friends, your neighbours, your family and help the truth to get out.

Ingleby Manor free school plus 350 new homes approved

It has today been announced the 750-place free school and 350 new homes can now be built after the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government granted planning permission after this was refused by Stockton Borough Council.

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The announcement will prompt mixed feelings with residents - supporters will obviously be delighted; opponents to the housing distraught; and many will fear the effect of the new school on the current schools in the locality, particularly Conyers and Egglescliffe.

 

However, the announcement has been overshadowed by criticism of the government's centrist approach in driving forward new housing developments, no matter how unwanted or unneeded, (and which I blogged about just yesterday here), and the grubby way in which the announcement has been delayed for perceived political gain.

 

On three occasions, opponents to new housing schemes have requested the Secretary of State "call-in" the approvals granted by Stockton Council to review the decision.  On three occasions, the request has been refused, on the grounds the applications weren't sufficiently large to merit the government's intervention.

 

However, this particularly planning application was recovered, according to a letter dated 26th September 2013 from the Department for Communities and Local Government, "because it involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units".

 

Now bearing in mind the applications to develop the Morley Carr Farm, Green Lane, and Mount Leven Farm sites were each far in excess of 150 units in size, why weren't these called in?

 

The only rational conclusion is that the 'right' decision (as far as the Conservative party is concerned) was made in those cases and permission granted. The only application to build new housing in Stockton South (James Wharton's constituency) to be refused was Ingleby Manor, and this remains the only one to have seen the government step in and overrule a decision taken by locally elected and accountable councillors.

 

I spoke yesterday about how the residents of Yarm and Eaglescliffe had been betrayed by the Conservative party's approach to planning and craven, cynical desire to see hundreds of new homes built in more Conservative-leaning parts of Mr Wharton's marginal constituency; today we can add Ingleby Barwick to that list.

 

And who has been the cheerleader-in-chief of today's announcement? You guessed it, James Wharton MP.

 

As though this didn't smell enough already, it gets worse. The public inquiry in this matter closed on 28th June 2013, with the inspector, Paul Griffiths, indicating the decision would be made within 6 weeks. So we waited, and waited, and waited...

 

Lo and behold, and as I predicted at the time, the announcement was made today, some three months later, on the eve of the Conservative party conference!

 

That said, I suppose it's pleasing to see the Conservative party can still display some loyalty to its troops, as Mr Wharton receives his reward for bringing forward pro-EU Cameron's Referendum Bill...