AS-levels and A-levels

Debate between Damian Hinds and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

It is difficult for us to understand how young people are at 16, and how much they are exploring their way in the world. That is a good thing, and one of the things that we should do is to provide a framework that helps them to make the right choices. Sometimes, allowing them a little more choice and flexibility—25% more subjects post-16—enables them to choose differently according to their experience. At 17, they are much more mature than at 16. People mature at different rates, too. I am not surprised by the story about someone taking A-level English as the fourth choice—English in that example could be replaced by any subject—and at the end of the period of post-16 study going on to study it, or a subject that it significantly underpins, at university, or indeed going into employment related to it. That is not unusual in my experience of working day in, day out, for 30-odd years, with 16 to 19-year-olds. It has been a familiar story since 2000.

Before 2000, people did not have that flexibility and choice. The curriculum was far less able to get the best out of young people. The dramatic change brought about by Curriculum 2000 allowed youngsters to continue with a broader programme and delay the final specialisation until the end of year 12. That meant that those advising students could encourage them to take more risks—to stick with physics as well as music alongside their maths and geography, keeping their options open longer, or encouraging them to do a modern foreign language for another year. What students would chose to focus on at the end of year 12 was often different from what they might have focused on at the end of year 11. People who have not worked with 16 to 18-year-olds, as I have for many years, might be surprised at how much young people mature in their first year of post-16 education, and how much their focus can change after they have been informed by another year’s study and another year’s consideration of what they intend to do next.

The current system allows students to choose four subjects at AS-level before specialising in three at A-level or taking all four through to full A-levels. There is a significant jump in difficulty from GCSE to A-level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham has indicated, and the AS has assisted students so that they can choose a broader range of subjects before specialising in year 13. Denying students that choice risks denying them the opportunity to discover a particular aptitude or passion for subject areas in which they previously had less confidence and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has indicated, it is liable most negatively to affect students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, who are most likely to be less confident.

My understanding of the Government’s current plans—and they are fluid, rather like a young person’s—is that although they will allow the content of the AS to be within the A-level initially, they intend, once the change is embedded, that A-levels and AS-levels will have distinct content, as they did pre-2000. If that is the case, it will be uneconomical for AS-levels to be taught and they will wither on the vine, because it will no longer be possible to co-teach them in the same class as A-levels. That is significant, because the pre-2000 history of AS-levels shows they never really got much traction.

The removal of AS as a stepping-stone qualification will almost certainly reduce the uptake of subjects that are regarded as relatively harder at A-level than at GCSE, and I suspect that there will be an impact on languages and mathematics in particular. Without validation at the stepping stone point, less confident students are likely to be discouraged from embarking on the A-level. With validation, there is less risk to the individual, who can always bank an AS at the end of one year and focus on their other three subjects at A-level.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, extremely experienced in and knowledgeable about these matters, but does he know of evidence that suggests that the fourth AS-level tends to be a hard subject rather than one of the subjects that some people would consider to be less hard? Or is it the opposite?

[Nic Dakin]

For a start, when we are dealing with young people, we are dealing with a collection of individual choices. In my experience, as someone who has spent a lot of time advising young people and encouraging them to make choices, if they are focusing on three subjects, languages are often vulnerable to not being tried. What turns out to be someone’s fourth subject—the one they drop down to AS—might not have been their fourth subject when they picked it. We can play around with statistics, but what is important is the impact on the young person at the point of choice, when they decide on their post-16 programme. Being able to do four AS-levels and then either take all four through to full A-levels or to bank one, increases the flexibility of choice, minimises risk and encourages people to take subjects that would be beneficial to them—mathematics, for instance.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend knows what he is talking about, and the Association of Colleges backs what he says. In the briefing for this debate the association states that

“the removal of the AS as a stepping-stone may well reduce the take-up of subjects which are regarded as significantly harder at A-level than at GCSE,”

in particular,

“maths and modern languages.”

[Damian Hinds]

My question was about what the evidence was, not the effect.

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is nothing if not persistent in asking questions that it is right and proper to ask and to answer, but evidence in this area is complex, as I hope I have illustrated.

When the Secretary of State says that he will divorce AS-levels from A-levels, but will retain AS-levels because he is “keen to preserve” breadth, he demonstrates that he is a master of irony. All the evidence of the past—and of the present—is that that will do exactly the opposite. The change will map on to the narrowing of the curriculum being driven forward by the EBacc in key stage 4, and with the focus on facilitating subjects post-16, it will ensure that the UK moves backwards, to pursue a narrow curriculum prescribed by a nanny-state Government who know best. The Minister shakes his head, but in reality the proposal is about the imposition of a centralised curriculum, compared with the move towards the personalisation of the curriculum over the past few years, which takes the individual forward, within a proper framework, in a direction that drives achievement and progression. It is a personalised curriculum that has been building the success fit for competing in the modern world, and that is what we really need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and therein lies the real risk. My fear is that we have a series of changes—and divorcing the AS from the A-level is a significant one—that will increase student failure and make the UK less ready to compete globally. We will rue the day if the Government do not think carefully and consider the evidence that is presented to them. For example, David Igoe, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, wrote to the Secretary of State:

“Our curriculum leaders, and the clear majority of teaching professionals and college and school leaders believe that the AS qualification should be retained in its current form. We also believe AS has the support of a very large number of academics and admission tutors”.

Of 780,000 A-level entries, 439,000 were in sixth-form colleges, so such people know what they are talking about.

The Secretary of State rightly sets great store by the needs of the Russell Group universities. They are great universities, of which we are rightly proud, but they hardly struggle to recruit or compete. That is a good thing, but focusing on their needs to the detriment of everyone else’s might not only be flattering—and embarrassing —to them but might be trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Out of more than 300 institutions listed by UCAS, only 24 are Russell Group universities, and all those institutions and their students matter to UK plc.

[Damian Hinds]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the meetings that he, I, and others in the Chamber attended, in which we met representatives of some of those universities who did not seem to think that there was a problem that did not exist?

[Nic Dakin]

I do not recall their outlining a problem that does exist, and certainly not one that would be solved by the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already mentioned the serious concerns of Cambridge university about the impact of the change.

Debt Advice and Debt Management

Debate between Damian Hinds and Nicholas Dakin

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who made a very intelligent speech about controls on the use of bailiffs that is helpful in the context of the overall picture that we are looking at.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the time for it. The debate is timely in two ways. First, as the Chancellor said this week, we face an economic storm. Families and individuals are facing rising energy prices, higher food prices, and rocketing fuel bills. Their incomes are being squeezed, and there is a real risk that more people will move into debt. Secondly, we are now in December, with the extra pressure of Christmas hitting household budgets. We do not want a debt hangover in the new year, with its awful consequences.

When someone summons up the courage to ask for help with dealing with their debts, they need to get the best possible support from people who will help them to clear those debts, not make matters worse. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) clearly illustrated the dilemmas and problems, and the kinds of practices that unfortunately happen. At present, people who try to take responsibility for their debts can find themselves at the mercy of unhelpful, aggressive and sometimes unscrupulous practices that make dealing with debt an even more unbearable experience. In 2010, the high-cost credit industry lent £5 billion in the UK. Payday loans alone increased from £1.2 billion in 2009 to £1.9 billion in 2010. The UK now has one of the highest levels of personal debt in the world. In April 2011, the figure stood at a staggering £1,460 billion.

At this time, the future of debt advice is uncertain, with changes to eligibility for legal aid and the transfer of responsibility for debt advice to the Money Advice Service. It is important that the Government and the Money Advice Service confirm the future of the financial inclusion fund debt advice services as soon as possible, not just for next year but for future years. The funding from that is part of the overall funding of Citizens Advice services. There will be real risks if the critical mass of funding to provide advice is destabilised by further cuts in income at local or national level.

The FIF debt advice services are in their sixth year. They were deliberately located in areas such as Scunthorpe to meet the needs of communities that have difficulty accessing debt advice. Every year, those advice services have directly helped more than 100,000 people nationally to resolve their problems. Regular audits and evaluations have found high levels of customer satisfaction, with services exceeding clients’ expectations and effectively reaching their intended target group.

The provision of independent debt advice in my constituency is particularly worrying. The situation is in danger of being exacerbated by the changes to legal aid eligibility and reach. There are real worries about the availability and accessibility of future support. I fear that that is typical of the situation in many parts of the country.

If the FIF debt advice services cease, there will probably be no alternative sources of help. By definition, those services are used by people with very low incomes and limited means. Their inability to repay substantial amounts towards any consumer credit debt means that private sector debt management services do not see them as a profitable client group to serve. Research shows that there is little overlap and duplication between the national telephone advice services and the local FIF services. Clients often use local services on referral from other local agencies such as jobcentres, landlords and local authorities. Many of the people they serve have problems or communication needs that require support to be given face to face for it to be effective.

The quality of advice from many fee-charging debt management companies is questionable. Their fee structures mean that they get much of their income up-front. They are therefore not encouraged to work with their clients to help them manage their affairs and become debt free. A huge amount of those companies’ budgets is spent on advertising to draw in income from the indebted. That contrasts with companies such as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and Payplan that use a “fair share” model to gain income. The incentive under that model is to work with creditors and the individual to make them better able to manage their money.

According to Citizens Advice, the majority of people in difficulty find themselves there due to changes in their life circumstances, such as death, divorce and redundancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, in opening this debate, drew attention to research from the University of Nottingham that underlines that finding.

With all its experience, Citizens Advice highlights three principles for taking debt advice and management services forward. First, access to free and independent debt and money advice services is vital for those in financial difficulty. Such services need to be funded in a sustainable way and should meet the needs of all consumers, including the most vulnerable. Secondly, people in financial difficulties need better options to deal with their debts so that they are not drawn into using poor-quality debt management firms or taking on high-cost credit as a coping strategy. Thirdly, the consumer credit regulator needs stronger powers and more resources to prevent consumer detriment and to act more quickly and decisively to deal with problems. I will return to the point about regulation later.

There are other things that need to be looked at carefully. We have heard about misleading advertising. Many businesses claim that their services are free when they simply are not. Fees should be clear, understandable and highly visible from the start. At the same time, free services must be made equally obvious and clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to make advertisers signpost free advice. That is worth careful consideration.

Another issue is up-front fees. Debt management companies often front-load their charges, with customers paying several hundred pounds before they receive any advice. We need to consider whether up-front fees should be banned. We should also consider whether cold calling should be restricted.

The Office of Fair Trading lacks the resources proactively to monitor compliance by debt management companies. It has issued formal warnings to 129 firms out of the 172 that it has surveyed recently for compliance. We need to strengthen the regulatory framework. Across the House, there is recognition that this is an area in which the regulatory framework needs to be used. I draw attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, which made that point clear.

We can consider better control on firms entering the market, better scrutiny of business models and making the regime less reliant on enforcement action against firms that behave badly and more focused on preventing bad practice in the first place, so that bad firms do not get into the market. Consumer credit regulation needs to be strengthened, so that it has a deterrent power. At present, many firms are simply not sufficiently worried about action by the Office of Fair Trading to avoid unfair practices.

The regulator should be able to compel firms to compensate consumers for unfair practices, and there should be swifter enforcement against unfit firms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, firms that the OFT considers unfit to hold a credit licence can continue to trade and cause consumers harm for many years as a Jarndyce v. Jarndyce-type labyrinthine process is gone through in the courts. That is not to anybody’s benefit.

Interestingly, a large number of lenders in the UK are now US companies that have come here to take advantage of the lower level of regulation. Earlier this week I met an organisation called Veritec, which said that the market was very attractive to US companies at the moment because of the lack of regulation. Five of the seven largest UK companies in the sector started in the US. It is therefore right and proper that we look at practice in the US and how it has come to regulate this fast-expanding area of business since the problems in 2000 and 2001, particularly in the state of Florida. Those problems led it to introduce a regulatory framework that appears to have some attractions.

My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to the features of the Florida model: a maximum loan of $500—we could consider the maximum being a percentage of gross monthly income instead, but $500 is Florida’s model—limits on multiple loans, the stopping of any roll-over payments, a 24-hour cooling-off period between loans and finally, a very important ingredient, the real-time information system run by a private company and paid for by the credit companies, but accountable to and owned by the regulator. The database is funded by a transaction fee.

[Damian Hinds]

I am pleased to see that although it is the first of the new month, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to make his face clean-shaven.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Florida measures apply specifically to payday loans, which do not account for the majority of the credit market or the majority of the debt problems in this country?

[Nic Dakin]

The moustache is having an encore for today and will be removed tomorrow.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Florida measures apply to payday loans, but I believe that it is worth considering how that model can assist overall. Interestingly, by 2009, 6.8 million loans had been authorised in Florida, and not a single loan was extended beyond the contract period. More than 90% paid back their loan within 30 days and more than 70% repaid on the contract end day. Consumer complaints of mis-selling dropped significantly, as did overall indebtedness, and not one borrower was indebted by more than $500 at any given time. The Florida model may well not be the answer, but I ask the Minister to what extent the Government are drawing on practice elsewhere in the world, including in Florida and in France, which has also been mentioned, to help inform how we can move forward. I believe there is cross-party consensus about the need to regulate, and as the hon. Gentleman indicated, it is horses for courses—the Florida model covers payday lending, but there are other issues to consider.

Post-16 Students

Debate between Damian Hinds and Nicholas Dakin

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

That is the worry. Such figures are floating around in the sector, and they are very disturbing, as the hon. Lady rightly says.

Entitlement funding currently provides the money for, among other things, tutorial and guidance systems in colleges, careers support, some targeted support for weaker learners, and health advice. It also pays for those non-examined activities such as sport, drama, music, volunteering and vocational experiences, which broaden the educational experience of young people.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I would like to raise the case of a student called Georgia, who is studying at Alton college in my constituency. As a result of the guided learning hours, she has had the opportunity to study creative writing and poetry, as well as something called “applying to competitive courses”. She has also received one-to-one coaching for her Oxbridge entrance. As a result, she now has an offer from Girton college, Cambridge. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that part of the whole picture involves trying to find the money to fund the young person’s premium, which is analogous to the pupil premium. I am sure that that is something that we would all applaud, but is it not also important always to find space in the curriculum, and in the funding, for these enrichment activities that can put state-educated children on an equal footing with privately educated children, and that those activities receive the priority that they deserve?

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, drawing on a clear case study from Alton college, an excellent college in his constituency. He makes the point that it is crucial to strike the right balance and ensure that colleges can continue their excellent work in developing the whole person and allowing young people from a state education background to access the best universities. Alton, and other colleges up and down the land, have done this very well over the years. He also draws attention to what is happening to the money for disadvantaged students, which it appears is being creamed off. It is not yet clear how it will be distributed, and that is at the heart of this issue.