Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to support schools in the provision of career guidance.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

From September, new statutory guidance for schools will strengthen the requirements for schools to build relationships with employers to inspire and mentor pupils and deliver careers advice.

[Ian Mearns]

The fact that careers advice has been completely delegated to schools is leading to growing evidence of a postcode lottery in provision. Unfortunately, Ofsted appear to be inspecting that aspect of provision with a light touch. That is leading to light-weight and inappropriate advice, lacking in impartiality and independence, with many youngsters ending up on courses that will not properly help them fulfil their ambitions and, in some areas, to increased drop-out rates. How will the Minister ensure that young people have their needs met through access to good quality, independent and impartial careers advice and guidance?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is true that in the past careers advice was not particularly well delivered as a policy, but the new statutory guidance, which will be in place from September, is all about strengthening the relationship with people in careers they are passionate about. Information is widely available: the issue is inspiration—

[Ian Mearns]

indicated dissent.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the evidence around the country is that more and more schools are getting in employers and those who have careers to offer, and lifting pupils’ eyes to the horizon.

Free Schools (Funding)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we do not just ensure sufficient school places everywhere in the country; we need to ensure that they are high-quality school places. One of the reasons why the free schools programme is succeeding is that it is both adding to the number of quality school places and providing an appropriate challenge and support to existing schools to raise their game.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State came to office, he often quoted Sweden as a great example to follow because of their free schools programme. Now that Sweden is in flight from free schools, what lessons is he learning from that experience?

[Michael Gove]

One of the things I have learned from Sweden is that their free schools outperform other schools in Sweden; the more free schools there are in the municipality, the stronger the educational performance of it. Sadly, Sweden has not benefited as we have from the full panoply of educational reforms needed to drive up standards. Sweden does not have an independent and authoritative inspectorate like our Ofsted under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s leadership; and Sweden does not have the programme of externally set and externally marked assessments such as those we have at the ages of 11 and 16 in order to ensure that all schools are held accountable.

Educational Attainment (Disadvantaged Pupils)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is of course quite right. He will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the figures for Belfast, but I agree with his sentiment. In fact, one could argue that the worse off and more difficult a child’s background, the greater the moral imperative for politicians to ensure that a good school is made available.

A number of questions arise on within-school underperformance. How should the pupil premium be used? If a school has relatively small numbers of disadvantaged children, what is the best way to use pupil premium moneys to benefit them? We know that, in general, whole school improvement programmes tend to disproportionately benefit the better off—although they may be beneficial overall, they are less likely to be beneficial in closing the gap. When a school has smaller numbers of disadvantaged children, specific, targeted interventions become quite difficult. Interventions are presumably not targeted at pupils because they are entitled to free school meals—that would be both difficult and rather divisive, and not something we would want.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Therein lies the problem. Schools are entitled to a pupil premium for children receiving free school meals. Therefore, there is a problem in some poorer neighbourhoods. Because of housing tenure and type, lots of youngsters who are not entitled to the pupil premium or free school meals but who are still in relatively low-income and deprived households live cheek by jowl with kids who do generate the pupil premium, and they often have as many educational problems as the youngsters entitled to funding.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There are a number of aspects to what he says. One is that free school meals entitlement is by definition a cliff-edge measure—children are either entitled or they are not—so, as he points out, crossing that line does not actually change whether a child is advantaged rather than disadvantaged. There can be a disconnect. Being on free school meals is not an indication per se that a pupil will not do well at school. The converse of what he says is that, as we know, lots of children entitled to free school meals do stunningly well at school.

[Ian Mearns]

On that point, I am a member of the Select Committee on Education. We visited the Netherlands last year, where the system considers the prior educational attainment of the parents in determining whether a child should attract additional funding in school. That is not perfect, any more than free school meals, but it seems to have some inherent sense behind it, because it is about the richness of the cultural experience of the child’s home life as well as the richness of the education that they get in school.

[Damian Hinds]

I will return to the educational attainment of parents when I discuss London specifically. The hon. Gentleman touches on something that I was about to mention. Entitlement to free schools and other measures of disadvantage are often correlated with certain clear indicators that children are less likely to do well at school, particularly those involving the home learning environment—whether there are books at home and so on.

Clearly, at system level, it makes sense to use the gap between free school meal recipients and others to chart our progress. Although entitlement to free school meals is not a perfect measure, it is the best we have in terms of accuracy. However, now that we have the new progress measure, which tracks the progress of each attainment group at entry and as they go through school, I wonder whether, particularly in secondary school, it would make more sense to use that as the primary measure in closing the gap, so that when students arrive at secondary school, whatever their prior attainment, we ensure that all schools are stretching all children to the best of their abilities.

I have numerous questions about between-school and between-area underperformance. The most obvious is how to get the best leaders and leadership support into the places where they are needed most, and how to incentivise great teachers into the areas that need them most. As I mentioned earlier, there is a vexing pattern. Certain areas are good either at primary or secondary, but not both simultaneously. Sorry; I should not say that they are not good, but hon. Members know what I mean. The proportion of schools judged good or outstanding is in primary or secondary, but not both.

I am pleased that this gives me an opportunity to say that within the south-east, Hampshire is an exception. I pay tribute to John Coughlan and his team. Hampshire is rated relatively well in both primary and secondary education. Overall, if all regions could reach their own internal benchmark—in other words, whether they are outstanding at the primary or secondary level, if they could get the other phase of education up to the same level—that would mean many thousands more pupils were attending a good or outstanding school.

Turning to London, I have already mentioned the gap at GCSE level between London and the rest of the country, and how London outperforms considerably when it comes to poorer children. In fact, it starts a lot earlier than GCSEs, and the effect persists a long time after age 16. It seems that in London, even before school begins, poorer children outperform children in the rest of the country at the early years foundation stage, to the extent that one can talk about a three-year-old outperforming. They pull away as they progress to infant and junior school, and by the time they reach age 15 and 16, they are almost 50% more likely than children outside London to get five or more good GCSEs, they are twice as likely as disadvantaged children elsewhere to go to university and, depending on which numbers one looks at, they are perhaps up to four times as likely to end up going to a Russell Group university, although the numbers are still small—one in 25 rather than one in 100.

Why is that? There was a thing called the London challenge. Whenever the outperformance of London comes up, the most obvious thing to say is, “London does well because of the London challenge.” Is that true? I have absolutely no doubt that the London challenge has been beneficial, and it is also true that there is a fuzzy boundary around it. In the period from about 2000 until now, many initiatives have either happened first in London before spreading elsewhere or been specific to London. They may or may not have been merchandised as part of the London challenge, but in a broader sense it could be said that they were.

But—it is an important “but”—there are a number of reasons to believe that the London challenge is not the sole or primary cause of London’s educational outperformance. The first and most important reason is that the year in which London’s GCSE performance caught up with the rest of the country was 2003, the year when the London challenge started. By definition, all the kids who did their GCSEs in 2003 had spent their entire life not in the London challenge. Politically, 2003 was a good year to start a programme focused on making London better, because from there everything was going up. The second reason is that after the initial London challenge, when it was extended to Greater Manchester and the black country, it did not translate as well. There were some improvements in performance, but not nearly on the same scale as in London.

[Ian Mearns]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the starting date for the London challenge, but the London challenge came on the back of other initiatives instigated by the previous Government, such as excellence in cities. Those programmes also occurred in other parts of the country, but they were not followed by the London challenge.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I acknowledged that there were a number of initiatives before 2003, and others that were not necessarily branded as the London challenge, but could more broadly be said to have been part of it. He is right that a number of things were done elsewhere, but the simple fact is that after all of that, and with the ability to copy from London anything that anyone would want to copy, we still have a 16 percentage point gap in GCSE performance among disadvantaged pupils between those who happen to have been born in London and those who happen to have been born in the rest of the country.

[Damian Hinds]

There is always a balance. I suppose it partly depends on one’s political tradition, where one comes from and what one tends to think works. We could say that the London challenge had a bit of both. On one hand, one area, Greater London, was doing its own thing, and within that, there was plenty of innovation in individual schools, which were encouraged to innovate, but on the other, it had system-wide leadership. There is always a tension and a balance.

The third reason to doubt that the London challenge was the sole or primary cause of the improvements is that the difference between children on free school meals and others was so marked, and the London challenge was not solely about children on free school meals or poorer children. The fourth reason is that it seems that London’s poorer pupils may already be ahead before school has even begun. There are so many other things that are different about London that we owe it to ourselves to at least examine them and consider what role they may have played.

[Ian Mearns]

The hon. Gentleman has not yet covered one factor that I am convinced has an impact. The Greater London area employment market is such that it is much easier to have achievable employment ambition and aspiration than it is in other parts of the country. In areas such as the north-east, where unemployment has continued to rise and youth unemployment is still growing, ambition and aspiration are difficult for many, because they do not see light at the end of the tunnel.

[Damian Hinds]

Can we hold that point? I will come back to it a wee bit later.

If the difference is not the London challenge alone—I totally acknowledge the beneficial effects of many of the programmes within it—is it simply more money? Of course, whenever we mention London’s outperformance, people say, “Oh, they get more money.” Yes, London schools get more money, but when we adjust that for deprivation, we discover that the difference is not quite as big as it at first appeared. In other words, when comparing the high number of free school meals in London with those in the rest of the country, the funding premium is not quite as large, although costs are higher in London, which is why there has historically been higher funding.

If we were to say it is just about having more money, we would have to say what more money has bought. Since I started working on this subject, people have told me that class sizes in London are smaller, but they are not. Bizarrely, they are slightly bigger than in the rest of the country, except at key stage 3. There is not a higher proportion of teaching assistants. Teachers are paid more, as are people in lots of occupations and professions in London, because of London weighting, but the difference in pay for the average London teacher versus the average teacher elsewhere is less than advertised. According to the ads, someone can earn up to 25% more as a newly qualified teacher in London, but the actual difference in take-home pay is on average smaller, because London teachers are younger and further down the pay scales.

What is different? I shall come to some of the things that the hon. Member for Gateshead mentioned. First, all sorts of things about the city are different compared with other parts of the country. The employment market is different, as he rightly says, which manifests itself in different ways. There are differential rates of unemployment, and youth unemployment in London remains concerning. In addition, there is the visibility of opportunities. If someone is travelling on buses and underground trains, they will be interacting with all the adverts, the people and all the rest of it. There is the cultural capital of the city—the museums and art galleries—and the pull factor of more university places. There are more university places per head of population in London than in other cities, and most people travel only a short distance from home to go to university. Everything is nearer. That helps with school choice—children go across local authority boundaries to go to school—and it helps schools wishing to co-operate with one another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I do agree that there are examples of local authorities across the country that have not been doing the job of driving up standards that we would have hoped for. That varies throughout the country. However, in local authority areas there are still excellent schools, whether they have converted to academy status or they remain as local authority schools. It is the ones that are not doing well that the local authorities and others need to turn their attentions to.

Across the country, there are nine local authority areas, predominantly in London, where every secondary school student attends a good or outstanding institution. Yet in 13 local authority areas a majority of secondary students attend a school that is not good or outstanding. Although there are areas of high performance across the regions, they are unfortunately far from the norm.

Ofsted’s report puts it bluntly, saying that secondary schools in the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber are among the worst in the country. That is not an observation I relish, as a north-east Member of Parliament, but it is one that we cannot afford to hide from. Those results are symptomatic of an education system that is failing many of our young people, but it is not all about the system; there is something else.

As has already been said, the Education Committee is currently examining the underachievement of white working-class children, many of whom come from impoverished working and non-working families living in areas where jobs are hard to come by and, as is the case in north-east England, regions where unemployment continues to go up. We are looking for answers to that underachievement, and we want to understand the variation across the country. Perhaps the answer is back in early years, as Governments appear to have agreed over the years.

The previous Labour Government did much for early years provision. I witnessed that in the north-east region, where they did more than ever to give children a better chance at the start of their education. However, we are still not reaching the children we need to reach, and the loss of provision is a serious concern. It is not wholly surprising that young people in the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber are less likely to attain results above the national level in the key indicator of five good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, than young people from almost anywhere else in the country.

As I said, we have successes in the north-east. The Secretary of State for Education, in his evidence to the Education Committee last month, talked about Sunderland, Gateshead and other pockets across the region where there have been improvements. In my own backyard, the North Shore academy in my constituency has improved considerably in the past few years. The school was developed under Labour and delivered under the current Government.

Poverty is a strong and powerful player. The north-east has the highest proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals outside London, and the gap in attainment between those eligible for free school meals and those who are not is wider than the national average in primary schools. Worse still, the gap widens by the time pupils leave secondary school.

Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills may be right to assert that children in England now have the best chance they have ever had of attending a good school, but that broad remark fails to acknowledge the dramatic regional variations that are turning education into that most horrible of clichés, a postcode lottery. Indeed, Her Majesty’s chief inspector accepted as much when he described our school system as

“a tale of two nations.”

He said that the system is

“divided into lucky and unlucky children.”

“Luck” is not a word I work with, but that is what he said. He talked of an

“educational lottery that consigns some children to substandard schools and favours others”.

Her Majesty’s chief inspector is clearly right to state that too many children in our country are unlucky, but too many children from similar backgrounds and with similar abilities end up with widely different prospects because the quality of their education is not consistently good—in other words, because they grew up in different regions and attended different schools with different opportunities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead outlined, the north-south divide means that people in the south can aspire to tremendous things, but there is not so much aspiration in the north and other regions. That is not fair. We must develop a system that minimises regional and local variations and restores fairness to our education system, ensuring that it delivers the skills and knowledge that the young people of today will need to succeed tomorrow.

We must deliver not only to some young people but to all young people. A crucial element of attaining that goal is to ensure that our teachers—their teachers—are fully equipped to do the job. The path to educational attainment, a path that every parent wants their children to follow, is guided by teachers. Nobody, apart from family, is more important in children’s lives. It is clear to me that the key to securing improved attainment for all, irrespective of the geographical fortune of social circumstance, lies in ensuring that teachers are trained to the highest standards to allow the cycle of progress to continue.

[Ian Mearns]

Outlining the importance of teachers is crucial to this debate because, for too many youngsters, the school day is an oasis of calm in an otherwise chaotic life. It is all too sad that we are asking teachers to put right an awful lot that is wrong for our youngsters.

[Alex Cunningham]

We certainly do, and I have seen some tremendous examples in my constituency and across the Stockton borough of teachers picking up a lot of education. Young children are arriving in nursery school still not knowing how to use a knife and fork, how to interact properly with children or even how to have a proper conversation. We rely on teachers tremendously, which is all the more reason why outreach through children’s centres and other organisations is so vital to helping parents and the wider family to help children to develop.

We need good teachers at all levels and in every neighbourhood, each equipped to deliver a modern education based on an up-to-date understanding of developments in teaching practice, specific subject knowledge and the latest educational tools and technology. The previous Labour Government responded to the challenge of failing education with huge investment in early years and across the primary and secondary sectors. The London challenge delivered great results, but that achievement was not reflected everywhere despite unprecedented resources in our schools.

The current Government are seeing some positive results from the pupil premium, but again the success is far from universal. I have no doubt that the social factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead describes, as well as the quality of education, have to be addressed to build the desire to learn and the desire of all parents to have high expectations of their children so that they do well in a society that offers equal opportunity for good-quality jobs and careers that can ensure they have a life to enjoy, rather than simply an existence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not know whether the report contains a smoking gun; I have no idea what it contains. It cannot contain a smoking gun, because the gun has not been fired, despite us waiting a year to hear what the survey says. If the hon. Gentleman would care to read in detail the OECD reports on the PISA rankings, he will see that they make the point that teacher morale matters, and that it is a key component of ensuring that our system produces good quality outcomes and, therefore, a component of raising our performance in the PISA tables.

[Ian Mearns]

As a member of the Select Committee on Education, I would find it useful if the Department published the findings of the teacher workload survey. It would be useful for everyone in the field to see what those findings are.

Also, instead of focusing on PISA rankings, it is much more important for us to focus on educational outcomes for children. That will have a knock-on effect on PISA rankings, but the matter is about educational outcomes for individual children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister may challenge the figures if he likes. The premium constituted no real increase in the schools budget. I know that the Minister is an economist, so if he wants to challenge what I say, he can, but it is a fact. When is a premium not a premium? When it is a pupil premium. Nevertheless we welcome the focus on the most deprived children, and we need to talk more about how best to use what is in effect a ring-fenced part of the school budget to close the gap. There is no silver bullet for that, or for overcoming regional differences identified by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, but the factors I have mentioned are important, and teaching quality is essential. The Government are getting that wrong with their message about unqualified teachers, and we think all teachers should be willing to become qualified so that the profession can be valued, so that they are up to date with the best pedagogical methods, and so that they understand child development properly. Strengthening parents’ role is vital and we need to think about how best to do that.

We have not talked much about the social and emotional aspects of learning, but those are important for children, and especially those from deprived backgrounds. We need to give more careful consideration to approaches such as mindfulness for improving the attentiveness and emotional well-being of children in school. Those are important factors in a good education.

[Ian Mearns]

The Select Committee recently went to Peterborough and met a gaggle of primary school heads. They said that because of the state in which some youngsters were coming to school they were using pupil premium money to feed them.

[Kevin Brennan]

Children often come to school with more than just the books in their schoolbags—they come with their home issues; and sometimes, unfortunately, they come with little in their bellies. I am a former teacher and it is difficult to teach them if they are hungry, or if they are distressed or perturbed because of something that has happened at home. We need to focus on more rounded issues to do with the child in education, if we are to close the gap.

The shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has made a big contribution to the debate recently, which I welcome, with reference to the importance of character and resilience, and schools’ role in helping to develop those qualities in young people. Those are the bedrock of educational attainment, and will contribute to closing the gap.

Free Schools

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

What a shame that the Minister for Schools cannot be with us. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) is here—it is good to see him—but it is a shame that the Minister for Schools could not attend, because this is clearly his area of responsibility.

Why would a relatively new Member of Parliament from a place like Gateshead be interested in the oversight of free schools? We do not have a free school in Gateshead. I have been interested in the concept of free schools since I read an article in The Sunday Times, on 4 October 2009—before I was elected—in which the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who was then shadow Secretary of State, said that Tory

“policies are aimed at the Gateshead mum…a no-nonsense working class woman passionate about her kids. Passionate enough to set up a massive comprehensive with 2,500 feral children on a depressed sink estate?”

Having represented Gateshead since 2010, and having been a member of the council there since 1983—with 30 years of elected public service under my belt in Gateshead—I was interested in those comments and wondered whether that was the Gateshead that Michael Gove really knew or was really thinking about—but back to the main item.

The oversight of free schools, which are a new type of school under this Government, will not have escaped the attention of hon. and right hon. Members in the past few weeks and months. Indeed, free schools were described by Channel 4 only last night as the Government’s “flagship” education policy. Although the quality of education that our young people receive is the most important factor in any discussion about education policy, we cannot disregard the cost implications for the public purse, particularly in the case of an ideologically driven policy.

Before mentioning oversight, it is important to give some context to this debate. In that regard, we should consider resources, including the funding allocations up to the next financial year. The Government have allocated a staggering £1.7 billion of capital funding to free schools, which equates to a third of the total budget for creating new school places in England as a whole over the spending review period. We should bear in mind the fact that, at the beginning of the autumn term, there were 174 free schools, compared with about 24,000 non-free schools. The words “disproportionate” and “partial” do not seem adequate to describe this investment in so few schools. However, I am more concerned that all this money is being ploughed into free schools, which are an as yet unproven, ideologically driven model of education, with serious implications for our young people.

The inspection and oversight of free schools, or rather the lack of it, has exposed the worrying shortfalls of this Government’s free schools policy.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. Just to clarify, does he believe that local authorities should have oversight or should a separate body be set up to oversee the free schools?

[Ian Mearns]

That question needs to be decided. At the moment, local authorities do not have oversight and it is clear—I will come on to this—that the other organisations given the duty of oversight do not yet have the resources to do it effectively.

It is particularly worrying that the Government, in the shape of the Education Funding Agency and Ofsted, seem to find out about failures of governance only when whistleblowers inside the schools feel it necessary to act. Free schools have a great deal of freedom in how to constitute and run their own governing bodies, and there is little evidence that either the EFA or Ofsted is able to identify and act on emerging problems.

In spite of Her Majesty’s chief inspector’s criticism of local authorities for not picking up problems in academies, one basic tenet of the free school movement is that they are totally detached from the local authority. Schools such as the Al-Madinah free school in Derby, Kings science school in Bradford, and Barnfield Federation in Luton—we are not entirely sure how many others there might be, and it seems that the Department for Education and Ofsted are not sure either—show that the wheels are well and truly coming off the free-school wagon and that free schools are vulnerable to a catalogue of problems.

Chief among those problems is the lack of good governance. That failure of governance is compounded by weaknesses in inspection and oversight of free schools. The three schools that I mentioned are examples of that. I should like to make it clear that, when we talk about schools, we are talking about children who, as the Secretary of State reminds us, get only one chance at a good education.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. In the past few weeks the tone used in respect of free schools has changed. I welcome the new approach by the Opposition Front Bench. However, I plead with the hon. Gentleman not to accept that all free schools have poor governance and poor arrangements in place. For example, in my constituency, Etz Chaim school has high standards, good governance and good people running it. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to characterise all schools and categorise them as he has done.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He has given a good example— an anecdote—of a school in his vicinity, but there are 174 such schools and as yet the mechanisms do not exist to ensure that every free school is of the high quality that he mentioned.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that qualified staff, proper standards for school buildings and school meals, and adherence to a national curriculum are ways of guaranteeing that every child in a free school can have a good education? Without those four starter points, there is a danger that we cannot guarantee the standard of education in free schools. That is the problem. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) mentions a school where he thinks things are going well, but without those guarantees and proper inspection there will be ever more disasters such as those my hon. Friend mentions.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a telling point. We are talking about educating children at a cost to the public purse. When the public purse is involved, we should expect minimum standard requirements in education. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

We are talking about the standards of education that these children receive. All too often, school policy is discussed as if it is somehow divorced from the fact that the ultimate victims of school failure are the children themselves. Let us not forget that even though these are free schools it is still public money that is paying for them.

The Al-Madinah school was branded “dysfunctional and inadequate” by Ofsted and “a national embarrassment” by Muslim leaders. Its own head teacher, Andrew Cutts-McKay, dismayed at poor governance and lack of foresight, turned whistleblower to expose the worrying slide in standards. Ofsted lamented the “limited knowledge and experience” of the governing body and the fact that teachers lacked proper skills to deliver a quality education. It condemned the school’s governance in no uncertain terms, stating:

“Accounting systems are not in place to ensure public money is properly spent and governors have failed to ensure an acceptable standard of education is provided by the school.”

Kings science school in Bradford has been accused of “serious financial mismanagement” and possibly fraud. Indeed, as with the Al-Madinah school, it was a member of the Kings science school staff—the finance director—who blew the whistle on the management of the school.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern that it took a full year after the whistleblower first raised these concerns for the Department for Education to publish that report into the alleged failings? Is that not just another example of the lack of transparency that has surrounded the free schools project from the beginning?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Although the Department for Education, Ofsted or any other inspectorate should be absolutely sure of its facts before going public, the time delay is worrying. The worrying precedent is that in those cases we have had to rely on whistleblowers—had they not been stripped of powers in relation to free schools, local authority officers would be uncovering failures. The EFA and Ofsted obviously do not have the required infrastructure, and are therefore not currently up to the job.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He makes a crucial point on the role of local authorities. Does he agree that one of the big problems in our school system is that local authorities are responsible for the education of all children but have absolutely no power to intervene in very serious cases such as those that he describes?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. The Minister could reassure hon. and right hon. Members in the room today, and members of the public outside, that local authorities should be given at least a temporary ability to intervene because of the concerns raised in three of the 174 free schools.

The alleged serious financial mismanagement at Kings science academy also extends to the school’s land lease. The Yorkshire Post revealed that a company owned by a vice-chairman of the Conservative party, Alan Lewis, is to receive some £6 million over 20 years, or £300,000 a year, to lease the land on which the academy was built. Particularly in the absence of local authority oversight of free school finances, it seems that there are what some might call beneficial deals for some at the expense of the public purse.

The plot thickens. According to the BBC, there was “a forensic investigation” earlier this year:

“The school was paid a £182,933 grant when it opened in September 2011. The EFA investigation found that £59,560 of payments were not supported by any evidence of payments being made, and £10,800 of this was supported by fabricated invoices for rent.”

More recently, it was found that an independent panel had fined the school £4,000 for failing to reinstate an excluded pupil. I am sure many colleagues on both sides of the House will agree that that is not how public money should be spent—it is not aiding the education of any child. That £4,000 is money that could, and should, have been spent on front-line education services.

That appalling level of financial mismanagement is even more concerning as it is public money. The coalition Government like to stress the importance of sound public finances, but oddly enough, their flagship education policy seems to have free rein on the use of public money.

An investigation into E-ACT—which, according to its website runs 34 academies and free schools from Dartmouth to Leeds—by the EFA revealed that a total of £393,000 was spent on “procedural irregularities,” including consultancy fees, breaking E-ACT’s own financial rules. The investigation also found that expenses indicated a culture of “prestige” venues, large drinks bills, business lunches and first-class travel, all funded by public money. “Extravagant” use was made of public funds for an annual strategy conference, at a cost of almost £16,000. Monthly lunches took place at the Reform club—I would like to go there some day, as I have never been—a private members’ club in London, with the public purse paying the bill for that excess. Boundaries between E-ACT and its trading subsidiary, E-ACT Enterprises, became “blurred.” A number of activities undertaken by the subsidiary were paid for with public funds. E-ACT, one of the largest chains of academies, was finally issued with a notice to improve by the EFA, so E-ACT lost Sir Bruce Liddington, its chief executive and former schools commissioner for England who, it is believed, was paid some £300,000 in 2010-11.

Barnfield college in Luton, part of the Barnfield Federation, which includes Barnfield Moorlands free school, has come under scrutiny for its educational practices. The concerns include grade massaging, as well as how the school treats its learners. The Barnfield Federation mantra, according to its website, is:

“One purpose. One team. One standard.”

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions the Barnfield Federation. Would he welcome a commitment from the Minister today that, when the Department completes its investigation into that particular scandal, it will undertake to publish the investigation immediately—rather than sitting on it for six months, as it did in the case of Kings science academy in Bradford?

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s question, and I echo that sentiment.

The Barnfield Federation has taken on some 10 schools in recent years, and I share the concerns that the federation might have overstretched itself by trying to take on too many schools too quickly. Although Barnfield college has stressed that it remains financially viable, its managerial viability is still a major cause of concern.

Advice given to those looking to set up free schools is careful to stress the importance of acquiring

“the right level of expertise to oversee the financial management of your school.”

It seems odd that the Government stress the importance of financial expertise in free schools—we have seen such failures—but have little concern about the expertise, standards or professional qualifications of the teaching staff. As I have previously mentioned, Ofsted raised concerns about both the financial and teaching provision at the Al-Madinah school, but Ofsted has not commented on the Secretary of State’s repeated assertion that free schools, and indeed all academies, do not need to have qualified teachers at all. That is apparently based on his view that what is good enough for Eton is good enough for any school. I appreciate that there is a little local difficulty in the coalition on that, but the Secretary of State and his Liberal Democrat Minister for Schools, at least, seem to be in accord, despite the apparent wider political Cleggmire.

The Government stress that expertise is necessary for the financial management of schools, yet they offer little insistence on such expertise when it comes to the governance and oversight of free schools. Many of the problems that I have outlined at the Al-Madinah school and Kings science academy, Bradford, stem from a lack of credible, organised governance and a lack of experience. The Department for Education may stress the importance of financial expertise, but if the systems of governance are poor, the financial health of a school will suffer as a direct consequence.

As free schools are autonomous, there is no way for local authorities to ensure that free schools in their jurisdiction have adequate, well rounded governance. It is imperative that that issue is addressed, urgently. The Government may write off Al-Madinah school as a one-off or as a contained incident, but the fact remains that that debacle has lifted the curtain on the fallacies and frailties of the programme. The Government simply do not have a clue about how many other free schools are in a similar situation.

The Department for Education’s website states:

“The right school can transform a child’s life and help them achieve things they may never have imagined.”

But what is the make-up of “the right school,” and what will the “wrong” school do for its students, who are ultimately children for whom we all have a duty of care?

Aside from good teachers and good facilities, I believe it is imperative that there is excellent governance, guaranteed by extensive oversight and rigorous inspection. I have called this debate because I have serious concerns about the oversight of free schools. I also have more general concerns about free schools, especially the disproportionate amount of the education budget eaten up by such schools. The unit costs of free schools bear no comparison with the vast majority of schools or schoolchildren.

One of my biggest concerns is the admissions policies adopted by many free schools that appear to be at best opaque, and at worst deliberately exclusive. A study by Race on the Agenda titled “Do free schools help to build a more equal society?” shows that only two out of 78 free schools are fully meeting their legal requirement to publish information pertaining to measurable equality objectives.

The ROTA report further states that only six free schools have published at least one equality objective, which is a poorer level of compliance than any other type of school. The question posed by the report is seemingly answered by those dismal figures. Free schools are doing very little to build a more equal society.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. What lies behind this is the fact that schools are not islands: what happens in one school has an impact on children in other schools and across the wider community. Does he agree that the free-for-all that free schools have become is bad for children—not just in the failing schools he talked about, but in other schools?

[Ian Mearns]

It is clear that free schools have an impact on other schools in their areas. Where those other schools hoped to have a comprehensive intake, the free schools will have a skewing effect. Indeed, they might also undermine the financial viability of other schools by taking pupils away from them. This is about not just whether free schools have a positive impact on the children who go to them, but whether they have a significant negative impact and a destabilising effect on other schools nearby.

[Nia Griffith]

Does my hon. Friend find it odd that some free schools have been set up in areas with surplus places, but not in areas with a need for more places? That is another worrying feature.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. Some free schools have not been established in areas where additional places are required or where a significant number of schools are failing and need to improve—to get a kick up the backside, as it were—but in areas where neither of those criteria has been met. There is really no educational rationale for the existence of those schools; this is an ideologically driven policy.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend said money is taken from other schools in the locality to set up free schools. Does he agree, however, that the £1 billion overspend on the free schools and academies programme has a much wider impact on the education of children, because it takes away huge resources across the country? That is an extremely worrying consequence of the programme.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. Every pound spent on one item cannot be spent on another—that is simple economic opportunity cost. If we as a country indulge ourselves in establishing a relatively small number of these schools, the opportunity cost is that the money cannot be spent on the educational opportunities of millions of other children.

If you will indulge me, Mr Gray, I would like to look at other elements of free school admissions policy. Recent research suggests that the majority of the first wave of free schools did not take their fair share of disadvantaged pupils. The vast majority took lower numbers of children on free school meals, compared with local borough and national averages. That not only underlines the idea held by some that free schools are the preserve of a privileged few—set up by the few to serve the few and not the many—but exposes how schools can use the dilution of admissions policy that the Secretary of State has overseen.

I know the importance of good governance and the impact it can have on the direction of schools. There must be robust, independent oversight of schools if they are to flourish and if we are to be sure that the children in them are getting a good-quality education and that public money is being spent in the best way. I can speak from experience, having been a school governor for more than 30 years, as well as the chair at a once underperforming school in my community. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends are, or have been, governors in schools in their communities, and they will be well aware of the role’s importance.

We cannot afford to let the scandals in free schools damage and undermine the reputation of school governors or governance. More importantly, we cannot let poor oversight of free schools distract us from ensuring that all children receive a high-quality education from properly qualified teachers. All parents and pupils need to be able to trust their school, and, as institutions that spend public money, free schools are no exception.

In “Academies and free schools programmes: Framework for assessing value for money”, an eight-page document published on 8 November, the Department says that value for money is based on the consideration of three key elements:

“Economy: minimising the cost of the inputs needed to deliver a service; Efficiency: maximising the service output delivered with those inputs; and Effectiveness: maximising the impact of the service on outcomes for those who use it.”

Referring to outcomes, it talks about assessing

“how educational outcomes are improving and the consequential economic and social outcomes that occur over the longer term.”

I am pleased that educational outcomes are at least mentioned, but the document raises a number of questions, which I would like the Minister to answer, if he can, when he sums up. What has been the total cost so far of free schools—including capital costs, revenue costs and the hundreds of thousands of pounds given to the New School Network? What measures are in place to measure outcomes in value-for-money terms? How many free schools are under scrutiny for financial or educational reasons, and how many have received warning letters? The final question, which has a very clear answer, is: can we afford the financial and educational cost of this ideologically driven policy? I am not sure that the answer is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing an important and timely debate.

I want to respond to some criticisms by the Secretary of State for Education of the schools in my area. I believe that they are an attempt to garner support for a free school in an adjacent area. I am not by nature boastful, but I want to begin by boasting about the achievements of schools in my constituency. We have seen year on year improvements, which have continued in 2013 with the academy at Shotton Hall, the Seaham school of technology and Easington academy achieving record results. Dene community school, which continues to improve year-on-year, also saw record-breaking results, and St Bede’s Catholic comprehensive school achieved its best-ever results, with more students exceeding the Government’s benchmark of making three and four levels of progress in both English and Maths from year 7.

We would all agree that the achievements of east Durham’s schools constitute something of a success story and are testament to the ambition and hard work of the teaching staff and students and to the drive of head teachers in my constituency. The success of east Durham’s schools ought to be cause for celebration and Ministers ought to congratulate them on their efforts. Sadly, that has not been the case. For some unexplained reason, the Secretary of State for Education launched an inexcusable and unfounded attack on east Durham’s schools earlier this year, saying:

“When you go into those schools, you can smell the sense of defeatism.”

He added that the schools had a “lack of ambition”. He was quick to condemn the schools, but he will not visit them, despite having been invited.

The Minister for Schools does not share the Secretary of State’s unduly pessimistic view of the schools in my constituency. Following Easington academy’s latest results, the Minister wrote a letter of congratulation, in which—I will read out the highlights only—he identified that the school stood out in two ways:

“First, you were ranked number one in your table. Second, over 10 per cent more of your pupils achieved five good GCSEs including English and Maths than is typical of a school with your intake. This is a fantastic achievement that you should be very proud of.”

He continued:

“You are also one of the 56 top performing secondary schools in England on this measure.”

That is praise indeed.

I pay tribute to the hard work of the students, teachers, parents and the head teacher of the Seaham school of technology, which has had some fantastic results in the face of real challenges, given the condition of the school building. Those results have come in spite of the fact that the much-needed new building, which had been promised by the previous Labour Government, was withdrawn by this Government to divert, I believe, funds towards the Secretary of State’s pet free schools project.

I want to compare the capital and revenue funding of schools in my area with that of free schools. The Durham free school, which at the last count employed nine members of staff but had only 30 pupils, is one such school. According to the Secretary of State, it represents excellent value for money. According my calculations, however, that is a ratio of nearly three students to every teacher. How does that represent excellent value for money?

[Ian Mearns]

I understand my hon. Friend’s chagrin at the criticism levelled at schools in and around his constituency, but I wonder whether it may have something to do with the fact that one of the Secretary of State’s special advisers, Dominic Cummings, was connected through a family member to the establishment of the Durham free school.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting and serious point. If the Secretary of State seeks to promote a political ideology in the form of a free school with political backing and in so doing is undermining the education opportunities and funding for pupils in my area, quite frankly, it is an outrage.

How much better would the results have been at the Seaham school of technology, which has more than 640 pupils, if it had enjoyed the fantastic ratio of one teacher for every three students or if it had at least received the much-needed new building that it had been promised? The Secretary of State’s free school pet project is motivated neither by achieving better results, nor by the desire to obtain better value for money. Such schools are free only at the expense of the success of existing local authority schools. I therefore do not understand how they can be considered to be cost-effective.

The truth is that the free schools project is ideologically motivated and free schools are being driven to succeed, with teachers and students everywhere else being made to pay for it. Free schools have been unaffected by budget cuts and receive a disproportionate share of capital and revenue funding, as pointed out by several hon. Members, at the expense of local schools, despite the fact that they educate only a tiny proportion of all pupils.

The Secretary of State has turned down several invitations to visit east Durham, but it would be instructive if he came and listened to students and teachers at schools in my constituency. They would ask him for just a little of what he is spending on free schools to improve students’ learning experiences and life chances. Through the Minister, I urge the Secretary of State to wake up to the facts. Free schools mean less oversight, less democracy and poorer value for money. They are failing the taxpayer, teachers, parents and, most importantly, children. If the Secretary of State does want to come down to earth from his ivory tower, there is no better spot for him to land than in east Durham.

Finally, I ask the Minister to pass on one more invitation to the Secretary of State to come and see how things are being done, to witness the state of the building at the Seaham school of technology, to speak to the pupils, teachers and head teachers and to change the habit of a lifetime by listening to those doing the hard work. A person is never too old or too clever to learn—even a Secretary of State for Education.

Qualified Teachers

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

The great thing about qualified teachers is that they can be both qualified and an inspiration. [Interruption.] I know that the Conservative party is developing something of an obsession with me, so let me say that if Conservative Members want to invite me to a special session of the 1922 Committee to talk about my past and history, I shall be more than willing to take up their invitation.

Why does the Labour party believe in having qualified teachers in our classrooms? The Secretary of State’s 2010 White Paper put it best:

“The first and most important lesson is that no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. The most successful countries…are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession’’.

In Finland, the world’s highest-performing education system, teacher education is led by universities, and all teachers are qualified to Master’s level. In Singapore, all teachers are fully trained and have annual training entitlements. The most effective way in which to improve our children’s education is to boost the quality, elevate the standing, and raise the standards of our teaching profession. We need to train teachers up, not talk them down.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just alluded to the very point that I wanted to make. The Secretary of State thinks that it is okay for us to have unqualified teachers, but also lauds the Finnish system, under which the minimum retirement for a teacher is to be a qualified professional with a Master’s degree.

[Tristram Hunt]

That is exactly the difference between the parties. We believe in professionalisation rather than deregulation. We believe in going up the value chain rather than deskilling. The point is simple: good teachers change lives. They engender aspiration, curiosity, self-improvement and a hunger for knowledge. It is teaching that awakens the passion for learning that a prosperous society and a vibrant economy so desperately need. The Secretary of State should heed the words of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, who has argued for teaching to be elevated

“to a profession of high-level knowledge workers, who work autonomously and contribute to the profession within a collaborative culture.”

Examination Reform

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, who has made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) has mentioned that at the Education Committee’s session this morning, the former children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), referred to weekly, often cancelled, ministerial meetings, which I think he said were often like soliloquies. I asked him who was doing the soliloquising. He said, “Can you guess?” I asked him whether it was more Hamlet than Lear, or more Lear than Hamlet. He said, “Well, think about that yourself as well.”

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about English baccalaureate certificates and the education of our current and future generations. As a member of the Education Committee, I have on many occasions expressed my serious concern about the introduction of the English baccalaureate in secondary schools, which occurred initially in 2010 without any consultation with education professionals, and was implemented retrospectively, to the detriment of many improving schools, who were then pushed further down league tables—tables that, I believe, are of questionable use when it comes to adding value to our education system. Can the Secretary of State produce the huge weight of evidence on which he has developed the policy, because I am struggling to find much of it?

As we have heard, the Government propose to replace GCSEs in the EBacc subjects—maths, English, the sciences, a language and history or geography—with English baccalaureate certificates. From what we can gather, that would involve three-hour end-of-course exams and no coursework element. I am troubled by many parts of the proposals, which I will attempt to go through systematically.

First, on the consultation regarding EBCs that ended in December, members of the Education Committee, parents, students, governors, businesses, teachers, head teachers and other education professionals have expressed considerable concern that the proposals have been rushed through and that the consultation parameters were too narrow and did not allow for comprehensive discussion. Many, including me, believe that the proposals surrounding examinations should not have been decided upon, and certainly not introduced, until the forthcoming review of secondary school accountability and the secondary national curriculum had taken place. Another result of the policy will be the introduction of a two-tier education system, in which pupils who do not achieve the EBacc will be given a statement of achievement that will not reflect their true ability or potential to employers and colleges, who will more than likely deem a certificate of achievement to be inferior. I am afraid that that is a sad fact of life. That is largely owing to creative and vocational subjects being disregarded and assessed as in some way second class. I reiterate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham: how can we upgrade some subjects without having the impact of downgrading others?

Such an attitude to creative and vocational subjects is disgraceful and worrying, given our country’s history of ingenuity and technological entrepreneurship. I question a policy that places the importance of Hebrew and classical Greek above that of business studies, information and communications technology, or design and technology. Those subjects were taken by one of my parliamentary staff, who is now studying for an MA and who considered them to be invaluable to her personal development. Several other valuable subjects have been removed from the menu.

In restricting subject options, we are also restricting pupil potential. Any system that prevents our young people from flourishing should not be endorsed, and should certainly not be introduced. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will revise his policy if proof materialises from universities and employers that the education system is failing to prepare young people for further learning and work in technical and artistic fields.

Another aspect of the policy that concerns me is the likelihood that, in the case of most subjects, there will be no assessment other than a three-hour end-of-course examination. That, too, highlights the two-tier nature of the policy. Many pupils thrive on an examination system that involves a combination of modular work and examinations. By introducing a qualification based purely on exams, the Government are almost casting aside all the pupils who do not excel at examinations but have a flair for coursework. I believe that that is counter-productive, and that it will be detrimental to a large proportion of young people. It strikes me as an idea that springs from a vision of a golden age of education in the 1950s, and possibly even the 1850s: an idea based on nostalgia for an era that never existed.

In my opinion, too much emphasis is being placed on employability. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what education is for, and concluding that it should be about trying to provide a system which, while preparing young people for work and working life, also produces well-rounded human beings. Employers, moreover, are likely to require a measure of an individual’s capacity to work systematically for a given period, rather than his or her ability to perform in a one-off three-hour afternoon examination. Let us help to prepare our young people to thrive and contribute to our community, rather than trying to retrofit them through a citizenship service. Let us try to do that while we are educating them.

I believe that, if we are to answer the question of what our education system is for, we should begin by revisiting the Tomlinson review of 2004, and using it as a starting point for the fashioning of education policy for the future. I think that that would be greeted warmly by a great many people in the education profession. I also think that the review has been broadly regarded as a missed opportunity from the period between 1997 and 2010 when Labour was in government, although I should add that Labour was faced with a massive education mess to clear up in 1997.

During an Education Select Committee session, the Secretary of State suggested that it would be possible for more children to succeed in a more difficult exam because they would be “taught better”. I found that response almost delusional. I believe that such comments devalue the hard work of our teachers, who work in difficult, emotionally draining environments, and many of whom already give far more than what is expected of them. It is all very well constructing an education system and a menu of examinations that may or may not fulfil the needs and aspirations of thousands of clones modelled in the image of the Secretary of State for Education, but the vast majority of children, I am glad to say, are not like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Both those things are true, which is possibly the point the hon. Gentleman wanted to make, and I absolutely acknowledge the real improvements. We may have brighter kids, and we certainly have more engaged parents and families, better teaching and teachers, better recognition of special educational needs and different styles of learning and all sorts of things that we would expect to improve over time, and which have. On top of that, however, there has without doubt been grade inflation and gaming of the system on an epic scale, and that is what these reforms seek to address. It is worth listing some of those points further.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my honourable Friend—I will call him my friend because we are friends—for giving way. When I took over as chair of the education committee in Gateshead in 1993, in the previous year fewer than 30% of youngsters got five good GCSEs. In Gateshead the figure is about 80% now—although it is about 55% including English and maths. We cannot honestly think that the vast majority of that change in 20 years was due to grade inflation.

[Damian Hinds]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman—and friend—exactly what proportion is accounted for by what. I celebrate the achievements of the children in his constituency and that area, and of those schools. We should never be reluctant to do that: their achievement is fantastic. Some element of that has been a real improvement; what I am saying is that there is also another element. Indeed, I think that everybody across the political spectrum and throughout almost the entire educational establishment—we are still working on the National Union of Teachers—now acknowledges what is a blindingly obvious fact.

The three areas where the gaming and the inflation take place are in the mechanics of the system, the subject mix and competition between boards—I want to return to the point that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

We certainly will. We are always happy to learn from and share experiences with other countries. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has been looking at the issues of corporate governance. I know that my hon. Friend has had a strong career with the John Lewis Partnership, which is one of the better known examples of employee ownership, but of course there are many other great examples of British companies that do that, and we are looking forward to promoting that more widely.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

9. When he expects all bidders from the first round of the regional growth fund to receive the funds allocated to them.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The regional growth fund is a three-year fund and we expect all the £2.4 billion allocated to be fully spent in that time. In round 1, 44 of the 67 contracts awarded have been finalised, totalling some £340 million, of which £220 million has already been drawn down. Of the other 23, 11 have been withdrawn and the remaining 12 are being processed.

[Ian Mearns]

I welcome the Minister of State to his new role. Having formerly been the MP for Darlington, at least he knows where the north-east is.

The regional growth fund has been mired in delay, chaos and confusion and, for some companies, no little uncertainty. How can we be certain, despite yet more reassurances, that winning bidders will receive their long-awaited awards?

[Michael Fallon]

My predecessor, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), can be proud that rounds 1 and 2 of the fund now involve some 149 projects and programmes, delivering about 330,000 new jobs and drawing in nearly £5 billion of private investment. The bid for Gateshead college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency was successful in round 2. A final offer letter was sent to the college at the end of July, and the money is there waiting for the college to take it up.

Safeguarding Children

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I know that my hon. Friend raised those matters directly with the Minister when he gave evidence to the Select Committee yesterday. I wish to put on record our appreciation of the detailed work that she and other members of the Select Committee have done on this important subject. I am sure that all Members look forward to that report, including its recommendations.

Services such as ChildLine have done an immense job in identifying the problems facing children and young people, but the increasing work load for its staff—similar to the increasing work load for social workers and council staff—and the fact that the processes for dealing with referrals are often bureaucratic, is something that the Government should address.

On early intervention, Labour supports the Munro recommendation that a statutory duty should be introduced on local authorities and relevant agencies to secure the provision of early help. Early intervention is vital in the prevention and detection of abuse. These services need to be expanded, but are under a great deal of pressure, not least from spending cuts. I wish to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for the excellent work they have done on this very important area of early intervention. They have outlined the importance of early work in identifying challenges and managing to tackle them at an appropriate stage.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

On that point about early intervention, the Government have marked out a route whereby they want to see special treatment for 120,000 families who meet five of their seven criteria, but the fact that they meet five of those negative criteria almost automatically suggests to me that they are past the point of early intervention.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is taking us into an important territory that merits consideration in a further debate in the House, because those are big challenges we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend tempts me, as a long-standing supporter of votes at 16, down a different road. I am sure that it was not a consideration in his making the intervention, but it is a debate for another time and place.

We also need to safeguard the safeguarding system. Studies have shown that the vast majority of care proceedings are appropriate and taken in the best interests of the child, but we need to ensure that there is a suitable mechanism for the occasions when that does not happen. Yesterday the Minister said that he was considering a form of “appeals process” to enable that, and I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could elaborate on his thinking.

I said at the beginning of this speech that child protection and safeguarding covers a range of issues and Departments, and, in addition to my warnings about unintended consequences and the well-being of children, I am concerned by the Government’s somewhat incoherent approach: on the one hand, Ministers like to lambast local authorities, yet on the other they are removing regulation and placing more power in the hands of local authority social work staff; on the one hand, Ministers say they want to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, but on the other they are introducing adoption scorecards for every local authority; and, on the one hand, Ministers say that early intervention is important, yet on the other they have not taken forward Professor Munro’s recommended statutory duty to do “early work” on child protection.

The British Association of Social Workers has raised a series of concerns about the state of the profession, particularly case load and the pressures on administration. In a survey that we conducted, more than 80% of the directors of children’s services who responded said that cuts to other services would affect their ability to safeguard children, and in a survey by the BASW 90% of social workers expressed concern that lives “could be at risk” as a consequence of cuts to services. The Government need to explain how they will address those challenges.

[Ian Mearns]

At a previous session of the Education Committee, when the Secretary of State was in attendance, I asked him whether he thought that it was a good idea for his Department—he being the Secretary of State for Education and children—to undertake an impact assessment of the Government’s proposed benefit changes on the welfare of children and their educational prospects. He subsequently said that he did not think that it was his responsibility, and he was doubtful about the veracity of such assessments anyway. Is that a surprise to my hon. Friend?

[Stephen Twigg]

It is not, and in my concluding remarks I shall say something about the Department for Education’s broader responsibilities for the well-being of children.

The Government have to explain how they will address the challenges that I have set, and there needs to be a robust training and continuing professional development framework not only for social workers, but for other staff in the relevant agencies, especially those in the health sector. It is crucial that we have robust supervision of social work practice by experienced senior staff and consultants who are accountable for the exercise of professional judgment. We know that the lack of good supervision was a significant issue in the baby Peter case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

I am sorry that we seem to be descending into the village frippery of the last debate. This debate was announced yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to shift various engagements to attend the House earlier and is not able to attend this debate. He trusts me and my ministerial colleagues to speak about this issue from the Dispatch Box. He follows these issues very closely. The fact that he has put the resources of the Department into ensuring that we have safeguarding improvements that are working is the test of the commitment of this Government, this Secretary of State and this ministerial team to the subject in hand.

Let us get back to the important business of saying what we have done and responding to the points that have been made. I welcome this opportunity to debate safeguarding children. It is appropriate that we should have this debate now because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, only yesterday we launched a consultation on revised statutory guidance, as part of our wider proposals to reform radically the child protection system in England. It is radical reform, and it is also about changing mindsets.

Before I remind hon. Members of the action that the Government have taken to keep vulnerable children safe, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the many thousands of professionals, social workers and others around the country who work hard to do just that, for which they receive little recognition and praise in the media or among our constituents. I often refer to social workers as the fourth emergency service. That is not an overestimation. Our reforms are designed to help those professionals to get on with their jobs better and to keep vulnerable children safer.

Although it is essential to tackle poor practice, I believe that we can and should do a great deal more to celebrate successes and to support those on the front line when they use their professional judgment to take tough decisions. I have met many hundreds of social workers over the past few years and spent a whole week in Stockport as a social worker a little while ago. They have to exercise the judgment of Solomon, often on a daily basis. It is not an exact science. They have to make difficult judgment calls, and we expect them to do so as part of their daily job.

As many hon. Members will know, the widely welcomed review completed by Eileen Munro last year laid the groundwork for a new approach to child protection. As I have said, it was the first review that we established. We are rapidly turning its recommendations into practice. Professor Munro found that the system had become overwhelmed by prescriptive bureaucracy and box-ticking, and that social workers were spending too much time on form-filling and not enough with families and vulnerable children. Endless procedures had been imposed on professionals to minimise risk, even though it is fanciful to believe that we can wish danger and insecurity away simply by ticking the right boxes. As a result, the professionalism and judgment of frontline staff had been undermined. The most important thing—the central focus on the needs of children—had been largely lost.

The answer that Professor Munro proposed was simple: we need to get back to basics of best practice. We need to allow social workers to spend more time with children and families, getting to know and understand them and responding to their particular circumstances and needs. As she put it, we need to focus

“not only on whether we are doing things right but whether we are doing the right thing.”

We accepted Eileen Munro’s findings and have been acting on them. We are beginning to see the fruits of the change of emphasis. We are seeing greater flexibility, with eight local authorities, including Knowsley and Islington, testing new approaches to the assessment of children’s needs over the past year. We have given them the freedom, through a special dispensation, to set their own local frameworks and to replace rigid time scales with professional judgments based on the needs of each child.

The feedback from the trials has been encouraging. Social workers are telling us that greater flexibility leads to more quality time with children and families, and better assessments, particularly for families with the most complex needs. Many also feel an enhanced sense of ownership over their work. We are, I hope, restoring confidence to the social work profession, which had taken such a knock.

Local authorities are telling us that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. They have been reporting back to us about the need to monitor cases robustly to prevent drift. We are seeing a greater practical emphasis on multi-agency working and a drive towards transparency, which is essential in improving services and strengthening public confidence in the work that they do. We are seeing a stronger focus on supervision, with social workers having more time with their managers to discuss complex cases.

I am also encouraged to see an emerging greater emphasis on learning, another key point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. Increasingly, the sector is taking the lead in sharing lessons from good practice and from when things go wrong. We can learn from mistakes only if we understand how and why they happened, hence our policy on publishing serious case reviews, which I am delighted to hear the Opposition have now come around to. We are also considering how we can improve serious case reviews to make them more effective tools for learning lessons that are widely shared and that lead to action and sustainable improvements. That could not happen while only very limited executive summaries were in the public domain.

Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we announced a further important step in our overhaul of the child protection system in England. It is a measure at the heart of the Munro recommendations: the revised “working together” strategy. That new statutory guidance for safeguarding children will help create a new culture of trust among health professionals, teachers, early years professionals, youth workers, police and social workers.

We have published three draft documents for consultation—and it will indeed be a consultation. Some of the points made by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as others that the hon. Gentleman raised, absolutely need to be fed into that consultation. That was why we did not just plough ahead, much though Eileen Munro was urging us to do so. We want to get things right, just as she got her recommendations right. We want to ensure that we put them into practice in the right way so that they work properly.

Our three draft documents will replace more 700 pages of detailed instructions with 68 pages of short, precise guidance and checklists. They will be punchy but clear and give professionals space in which to exercise their professional judgment. The revised guidance proposes giving local areas more freedom to organise their services in a way that suits local needs. It will allow more face-to-face time with children and families, which is crucial, and provide a clear framework within which professionals must operate.

The first document, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, clearly states the law so that all organisations know what they and others must do to protect children. It does not tell GPs and other health professionals, teachers, police and social workers exactly how to do their job, but it provides a checklist setting out their duties and what is expected of them. It also sets out how the role and impact of local safeguarding children boards can be strengthened. As the hon. Gentleman said, they are crucial to the reforms, and they play an absolutely vital role in holding local agencies to account and getting all the key players around the same table and talking the same language.

The second document is new guidance on undertaking assessments of children in need. Informed by evidence from the eight trial local authorities, it proposes replacing nationally prescribed timetables with a more flexible approach. That approach will be focused, as it should be, on the needs of each child. It will absolutely do what the motion asks for—it will put the child’s needs, rather than compliance with inflexible time scales and recording processes, at the centre of assessment.

The third document is new guidance on learning and improvement, to help all services learn the lessons from serious case reviews. It comes from our strong belief that serious case reviews need to be much more strongly focused on learning, rather than process, and that the reports must be published so that lessons can be shared nationally and locally. In those reviews, we need to get to the heart of what went wrong and what action at what point by which individual led to a decision being made that might have contributed to a tragedy.

The approach behind those three new documents has rightly been welcomed. Professor Munro has said:

“We are finally moving away from the defensive rule-bound culture that has been so problematic. I believe an urgent culture change in our child protection system is now underway.”

Anne Marie Carrie, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, has said:

“We support changing the emphasis within the system to enable professionals to take responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the most vulnerable children.”

[Ian Mearns]

At the same time as doing the work that he is undertaking to do, has the Minister given any additional thought to updating the legal definition of neglect? I believe that next year is the 80th anniversary of that definition as it is currently enshrined in law.

[Tim Loughton]

We had this conversation yesterday in the Select Committee on Education, of course, and I said that in response to the Action for Children report we had examined closely whether there needed to be an update to the law, which goes back to the 1933 definition. We were strongly advised that we did not need to change the law, which the courts and children’s services are interpreting in a contemporary way. As I was speaking yesterday, we were putting on the website a neglect toolkit, designed with Action for Children and the university of Stirling. It includes some practical tools for detecting, intervening and dealing with cases of neglect. That is a much more practical way to achieve real results now.

Revising statutory guidance is clearly not the only thing we need to do—far from it. The consultation forms part of a much wider programme of reforms that includes Ofsted’s new inspection framework, which began in May 2012 and has a stronger focus on the quality of practice and the effectiveness of help provided to children. It is much more children-centred. From June 2013, the planned new joint inspections will make a further important difference by looking at the contribution of all local agencies to keeping children safe. We are reforming inspection so that it makes judgments about the things that really matter, and so that it looks at how agencies work together to safeguard children more from the perspective of the qualitative outcomes for the child.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on his very good speech, much of which needs to be listened to and understood. It is not that we do not have the right laws in place; it is that the professional judgments made by practitioners are often basically not common sense.

Let me declare a declaration of interest on account of my involvement in the Justice for Families campaign. What I tend to see are the over-interventions, where the state intervenes improperly.

Returning to the issues of Rochdale, I raised a number of years ago the situation of a children’s home in Birmingham, where the practitioners did not mind if the children were prostitutes but did mind if they made toast for each other—because there was a health and safety risk to making toast.

I have made the effort to get the statutory guidance. If the motion supported the statutory guidance, I would probably have to vote against it, because it goes no further in looking at the definition of what is a risk of significant harm. It is quite clear that certain practitioners do not believe that being a prostitute is a risk of significant harm. [Interruption.] That seems to be the case, and it is not necessarily a UK-only situation. A family currently living in Wimbledon had similar problems in New Zealand where an under-age relationship was encouraged by the practitioners in that country because they thought it was right. That was on the New Zealand media last week.

[Ian Mearns]

In the Rochdale case and others I have read about, the abuse perpetrated against young girls has been so systematic and has lasted over such a prolonged period that the girls themselves did not see themselves as victims. In that scenario, who is going to look after them? We must think deeply about the implications of that problem.

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent intervention, but I shall not take any more because of the Speaker’s advice.

Let me explain one of my concerns about the Government’s complacency on this issue. We have the SSDA903 return, which tracks what happens to children as they leave care. A number of possible destinations are listed: for example, adopted; died; care taken by another local authority, and so forth. There are also those who leave care for an unknown reason. In America, this is tracked to find out who has run away. These are children who have been abducted and trafficked. Across the country, we find that 5,950 children left care for unknown and other reasons. Of those, 430 were aged one to four; 350 were aged five to nine; 630 were aged 10 to 15, and there were many more at the ages of 16, 17 and 18. I have the detailed figures for my local authority, if anyone wants to see them.

What is sad is the fact that the Minister has refused to consider trying to gain more detailed information so that we know what happens to these children. If I were losing 5,000 children here, not knowing what was happening to them—rather similar to the situation in Rochdale—I would not be feeling very happy as a corporate parent or as a parent in any form whatever. The failure is in not having proper systems of checks and balances on the judgment of practitioners who operate on a daily basis.

There are some excellent practitioners. I know of one social worker who was recently suspended because she would not change her view that a child should go back to its parents. The management tried to bully her into agreeing that the child should be adopted, but she would not do that, so she was suspended. We should be looking at what those managements are doing, and establishing whether it is valid. We know that much of the evidence is unreliable as a result of the excellent work of Professor Jane Ireland, which is the only proper independent work that has been done to assess the quality of evidence in the family courts.

I have here a letter from the Health Professions Council, which is refusing to investigate allegations about bad psychologists. Giving the reference FTP04616, the HPC says that it cannot “progress the concern” because of the current law. I think that it misunderstands the law: I think that the 2009 changes enable it to investigate allegations about rubbishy psychologists without the permission of a judge.

We have a problem with checks and balances, and with the failure of quality control in respect of evidence and the family courts. However, we also need to look at the wider issues of why children are taken into care. The failure of the statutory guidance to go beyond “risk of significant harm” implies that there is a real problem. The care system is very complex and involves very subtle judgments, but the Government come along wearing big boots and try to kick it in a particular direction.

Puerperal psychosis involves extreme baby blues or post-natal depression. When a mother has given birth and is depressed it can be dangerous for the child, who may need to be taken into care; but is that the sort of case that should be driven towards adoption, just because mum was depressed after giving birth? Such action is likely to make mum even more depressed. The Government’s policy is, “We need to speed it all up: we need rapid decisions.” The flaw in their approach is that there is none of the individual judgment on cases that is really needed. It is a very simplistic approach to what is a very complex system.

Domestic violence is another example. Angela Wileman is writing a book about what happened to her. She has been to Spain, Ireland and all over the place to avoid the UK care system, which was persecuting her in various ways. She has been in the newspapers plenty of times. She was a victim of domestic violence, on the basis of which the system wished to take one of her children from her, put that child in care and have it adopted—but only that child, because she had had the other child abroad.

Ms Toni McLeod, who lives with her family in Durham, is thinking of going to Ireland because she is pregnant. It is a difficult situation. She was a supporter of the English Defence League. I hate the EDL. Three of my children are mixed-race, and I protest against the EDL. Toni McLeod says that she is not racially prejudiced, but that children were taken from her partly because of her membership of the EDL. It was

“felt that conversations and opinions may be expressed in the children’s presence.”

That is a “thought police” approach to care. The system intervened because of what Toni McLeod might say in front of her children. She says that she has many friends who are Muslims and Sikhs, and that she disowns the EDL nowadays, but whether that is true or not, we should ask whether it is appropriate for the state to remove a child because children may be radicalised by a parent. Is that an appropriate use of the phrase “risk of significant harm”? That brings us back to the statutory guidance, which makes no effort whatsoever to give any indication of what is meant by the phrase.

One of the biggest problems in relation to the accountability of the family court and the care system is insufficient proper, academic access to the details of the proceedings. We do not know whether we are achieving something for the children or not. An excellent report by Ruth Gilbert, published in The Lancet late last year, raised major questions about whether we are getting anywhere at all with the overall system. We have some extremely serious problems, and in my view the interventions are often damaging.

I work with a number of care leavers. It is important to remember that care leavers remain care leavers even when they are in their forties and fifties. As people get older, they gain the confidence that enables them to speak out about what happened to them when they were younger, whereas many people in their late teens and early twenties do not have enough confidence to explain where the real problems lay. We need to be very careful. Lucy Allan may be going to speak to the Minister about her experience. She was a Conservative councillor. The same psychologist wrote two different reports about her, which was complete nonsense, of course. If a specialist of some kind writes two completely contradictory reports about the same person, what intellectual value does any of that information have?

Although I have a lot more to say on this subject, I only have 54 seconds left, so let me just put on the record that the Education Committee has done an excellent job in listening to people on different sides of the argument. The family justice review panel included only people who operated the system. It therefore did not properly consider the views of those who are affected by the system. The Home Affairs Committee will kick off an inquiry that I hope will be run on a far better basis. The Munro report is quite good, but we need to look more rationally at the detailed ways in which things are operated and make sure steps are taken that actually benefit the children in the long term, not just hit Government targets.

New Schools

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend, like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), wants me to go further and faster with reform. If only I could. I can confirm, however, that strong bids, such as those from Birkenhead and Harlow, which have not made the cut this time but which benefit from having very effective constituency advocates and strong backing from an outstanding college or a great university, are bids that we would like to be able to support in the future. We shall continue to work with bidders to try to ensure that they can be agreed.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to the Department by the Education Select Committee, officials said that they were surprised by the rate of applications for academy status. Undoubtedly many schools will be applying for the right reasons—because they want to unleash the educational potential among their teaching staff and youngsters. However, others will be drawn by the financial carrot—capital—or by the fear of being left behind if they do not apply for that status. Is the Secretary of State certain that he has the resources to fund this package appropriately without leaving other schools behind?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. That is a very good point. The hon. Gentleman, in local government and the House, has always tried to ensure that we fund schools equitably. We have always sought to ensure that maintained schools and academies are funded fairly. The word “carrot” is sometimes used to describe the incentives inherent in academy status, but I want to make it clear that if a school becomes an academy, it does not receive any additional money. It is just that it can spend money on it pupils’ priorities—money that had hitherto been spent by others on their behalf.

Academies (Funding)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, I do. When we were in opposition, we proposed extending academy status to primary schools. The schools Minister at the time thought it was an appalling idea. However, we have to do something about the 200 underperforming primary schools. Indeed, we have to do something about all the underperforming primary schools, because primary school is where children learn the basics of reading and arithmetic. If we do not get it right in those early years, the life chances of all those thousands of children attending those underperforming schools could be blighted. We intend to sort those schools out.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has made it plain that if schools do not buy a raffle ticket by going for academy status, they will not be able to get involved in the raffle to get capital out of the future school funding. He has already admitted to the House that 100 staff in his Department are engaged in the expansion of the free schools programme. How many staff are engaged in this botched expansion of the academies programme, and how much is that costing the Department?

[Mr Gibb]

This is an important part of raising standards in our school system; indeed, it is a crucial element. When 9% of boys leave primary school with a reading age of seven or under—they are basically unable to read—it cannot be said that applying staff in the Department to deliver the academies programme is a waste of taxpayers’ money. This is good money that is being diverted to a programme designed to raise standards in our least-performing schools, and I think that it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.